Your best engineers will be AuDHD, and AuDHD folk don't do well in these sorts of synthetic tests.

I can code in 20+ languages for over 12 different OS', write code that's good enough for CERN to run for particle accelerator data collection for a decade, have accelerated systems by an order of magnitude by understanding the poem space better than their previous engineers, but I am abysmal at exam style settings.

The software industry is riddled with SEs who write abysmal code but can pass a coding test easily. They're the folk that you have always needed to reject but didn't because they ticked a box.

The DOD/DOW have been working on this for a while. They discovered, early on, that the device had a propensity to cause permanent nerve damage.

It's very unlikely the US have fixed that, as they'd largely sidelined the work as a failure. However, at 36%, Trump needs something he can call a win, no matter what the long-term consequences.

We use both in production here; but, let's be VERY CLEAR: there is absolutely NO FAIR COMPARISON between a locally hosted model on above-average hardware and what Anthropic (and I assume others) is offering with their, currently, subsidized plans.

...Modern ejector seats cause spinal injuries from which full recovery is "unusual". Smashing the spines of pilots might not be the most effective way to boost morale.

$22,000 per hour. The F35 will be nearer $42,000 per hour. These are under-estimates, as they do not include price hikes, crashes that close businesses, crashing into businesses, crashing into heavily-populated sports centres, etc.

Not necessarily a capacitor; sometimes a little counter circuit, on the MCU but independent of the CPU and not controllable (or vetoable) by it. In either case, not prone to systemic failures of the higher-level logic.

People overestimate the difficulty of adding low-level contingencies to high-level systems, and underestimate engineers' eagerness to do so. But this is the sort of thing that EEs worry about all the time.

I am sure you know this and are just trying to shit on the editors, as one does on /.; but here, use this in case you didn't know: https://xcancel.com/_lyraaaa_/...

I have, thanks. Now, read about the fact-value distinction, and reflect that average road speed may not be a reliable indicator of overall happiness.

That was the whole point: to help people live where they want to live and get to where they want to get to. Every car making up that new traffic jam is being driven by someone who is, on balance, willing to sit through it because of the positive effects it's had on them.

The refrain of radicals everywhere, and of all sides. "Just shut up and wait until we remake things as we want. You'll learn to want them that way too, we promise."

Thanks for your concern. Please refer to my fuck off from above. You donâ(TM)t get to decide what I want.

You're wrong on both accounts as well as wrong fundamentally. I personally donâ(TM)t want to drive. I quite dislike driving. I prefer a short walking commute, and when that's not practical I prefer mass transit. But for many people, driving is the only practical way to simultaneously accomplish several aspects of the life they want to live, including being housed in a very low-density area, working in a high density area, commuting without significant walking sections, etc. Those desires are not a matter of planning. Don't go so far the rabbit hole of social engineering that you forget that people actually can honestly want things.

Oh fuck all the way off.

This idea of "induced demand" always comes up in the context of traffic improvements, as though the goal of traffic design is to keep people from driving. (We had a sale on apples, and everyone bought our apples! Damn this counterintuitive induced demand!) Add a bypass and now it's full of cars? Good! That was the whole point: to help people live where they want to live and get to where they want to get to. Every car making up that new traffic jam is being driven by someone who is, on balance, willing to sit through it because of the positive effects it's had on them.

You can point to pollution and carbon emissions and freeways splitting communities, of course. There are plenty of reasons not to want more roads, and plenty of reasons to want to force people to adopt different living habits than they want to. But if that's your aim, at least be honest about it.

No. It means "correlation". If you find yourself with a thumb on the scale of causation, I think you owe it to yourself to ask why.

They said that, too. One can only go through so many rounds of histrionics about special circumstances and existential threats to democracy before one starts to mistrust the premise.

Yes, that is literally the policy being described here.

Whether we like it or not, whether we use Windows or not, Microsoft is going to insist on adding the tax whether the PC comes shipped with Windows or not. This is illegal bundling, Microsoft has essentially ignored prior rulings, and it's pretty much a certainty the courts will be fine with this.