Scene: Lunchtime at the Central Market, a trendy/tourist-trappy food-court/market area in downtown Los Angeles. Waiting in line to buy a gourmet sandwich from the sandwich vendor.

In front of the counter: lots of hungry customers. Behind the counter, three bemused-looking sandwich-makers standing idle, because the order-taker at the register is holding a cell-phone to one ear, conversing furiously with the tech support line of the company that provides their cashless ordering system, while at the same time waving off customers because he can't accept their cash and his order-taking tablet's server is down so he can't accept their credit cards either.

My takeaway is that cashless transactions are fine, right up until the moment they suddenly stop working for whatever reason, and at that point everyone involved will either fall back to cash as a work-around, or wish that they could.

Yeah, I once looked into them and got sticker shock :P That said, the prices are coming down. The research seems to continue to show that they're safe for humans (although from the data I've seen I doubt they're safe for houseplants; their cuticle is much thinner than our skin). But for us... it can't penetrate dead skin, and while the outer layers of our eyes are alive, the cells there are constantly being shed and replaced.

It makes sense. Clavascidium laciniatum forms a biological soil crust in harsh areas like Joshua Tree. And it's incredibly slow growing. So the rate at which it accumulates UV damage versus the rate at which it can repair itself is super-high. Hence it's been under intense selective pressure to develop good resistance to the ionizing radiation damage caused by UV.

When the British were regularly poaching our waters, we pushed them back incrementally in a series of three "Cod Wars". We didn't just sit there and allow it to happen.

Back in my University days , 1990s, early 2000s (I was there a decade, grad, postgrad all that) I was a fairly regular bar-fly at the on campus student pub. Learned more in that pub talking to academics and other students over pints than I ever did in the classroom.

Around half way through my degree a new face turned up, a man in his early 70s with a polite british accent, Kev, walked up to our table with a jug of beer and introduced himself. We where a pretty diverse lot, so we made a space, and all of us became fast friends.

He had retired a while back, had a career as an industrial chemist that sent him around the world, spent a lot of time in africa, and generally had an almost endless stream of stories to tell. After a few years of retirement, he decided to go and do a chemistry degree again, because when he had retired he felt the world had left him behind in his knowledge., so he went back to scratch to catch up on all the developments the previous 40 years had brought. No intention of working again, but he didnt want to spend his twilight years as a bored retired person with 20 cats and a drinking problem.

He had a blast too with his newfound circle of 20yo friends. Smoked his first joint, discovered the joys of 90s indie pop, occasionally got himself in trouble with the ladies, but generally had a polite british demeanor that got him out of a lot of trouble too. We all knew his morals came from a different era, so we cut him a bit of slack. We dubbed him "The worlds oldest teenager".

I visited him a few months ago. Age finally caught up to him, and I doubt he has much time left. He ended up hooking with one of our groups elderly mothers (that was..... awkward) and ended up looking after her after her son died and she fell to pieces, but its clear he hasnt got much time left. His body is just falling to pieces.

Still, I thoroughly recomend to anyone who's retired to consider going back to university if, or you've got the funds to pay for it. Too many old folks just retire and stop doing anything, and the lack of activity in both the brain and body end up killing them. And don't worry about all those young folks. If your a friendly, fun and active person, chances are all those young folks will adore you for your stories and wisdom, and you get to have a second youth.

My #1 use for ChatGPT is "show me an example of some C code that implements functionality (X)".

Then I can read that example, research the APIs it is calling (to make sure they actually exist and are appropriate for what I'm trying to accomplish), and use it to write my own function that does something similar. This is often much faster than my previous approach (googling, asking for advice on StackOverflow, trial and error).

While I think the high end models are actually very impressive, the one on top of google search results is a drooling idiot and regularly just makes up nonsense. Just yesterday I searched for information about radiation suits on the "Dune Awakening" game (very fun), and it utterly hallucinated a big bunch of nonsense about it being 3 piece, with exchangable breathing apparatuses and the like. None of that is true. I *think* it was cribbing details from Fallout. (It mentioned "Radaway" tablets, which are from fallout) but it was so matter-of-fact about it being part of the Dune awakening, and clearly the results bellow it on the search directly contradicted it. Its not a good implementation of generative AI.

If bottom-up coding is a fallacy, someone has forgotten to let evolution know that. Here we all are, bottom-up coded, for better or worse.

People who live far away from a hospital and don't have much gas in the tank?

Yes, it is exactly the convenient avenue of the day, and that's the problem. People who own a gun are eight times more likely to die of suicide than people who do not, simply because they have easy in-home access to the most effective tool for the job. People who live in "food deserts" have poorer diets than people who have convenient access to healthy food, because nobody wants to travel across town when they're hungry. People playing video games solve most of their in-game challenges through (virtual) violence, because violent actions are what the game designers have mapped to the most convenient and obvious game-controls, while non-violent solutions require a lot more thought and contrivance, if they even are possible at all.

Convenience matters, because people are more likely to do something when it's convenient than when isn't. So in this case, ChatGPT gives mentally marginal people convenient access to an encouraging, enabling, delusion-reinforcing "friend" 24/7 in their own home, for free, with insufficient guard rails, leading to the outcomes we see reported here.

It's incorrect to think that mentally ill people are doomed to madness no matter what, just as it's incorrect to think that people with weakened immune systems are doomed to die of infection. They have a higher risk, certainly, but whether they actually fall victim or not depends a lot on what's going on in their environment.

You've misunderstood Darwinism. Natural selection has nothing to do with who "deserves" anything; it's only about whose genes get propagated forward and whose do not. And it's not (necessarily) the stupidest among us who will likely die off, it's the least fit, for whatever definition of "fit" is pragmatically relevant for a genome's survival and reproduction under current circumstances. In today's world, stupidity might actually be a reproductive advantage.

The masses rely on their skills to remain employed and to generate a reliable income for themselves. AI, to the extent it can, algorithmically replicates those skills and provides them to its owners for (close to) nothing, so that employers can now pay very little for services that they used to have to pay a skilled human worker more for. This effectively makes the skills that the humans invested long years in developing close to worthless -- the humans now have to compete against their own skillset, which has been separated from them and is able to undercut the value of their labor 24/7/365.

Sure, some humans can develop new skill sets, either working with AI or developing AI, but that's another big multi-year investment to make, with no real guarantee that the next generation of AI won't simply learn and replicate those skills as well. A worker can of course use an AI himself, but unless his AI can somehow provide some service that no other AI can provide just as well, his work product is still commoditized and won't make him much of an income.

I don't think country A really cares one way or the other. It's just that the leader of country A is up well past his nap time, and he needs some plausible rationale for the temper tantrum he is going to throw in order to gather some more attention, so this is what he's chosen this time.

Other nations regularly poach in the Georges Bank? That's pretty crazy.

You're really triggering Poe's Law here for me.