No, it's just the sort of thing that the UEFI design kind of does.

You load a bunch of stuff that all initializes, just in case it might be needed. One of the key optimizations in some UEFI implementations is trimming down the things that get loaded based on an early assessment of whether this or that would be relevant to the expected boot. For example, hit key to enter setup and suddenly it has to load all the things to make sure all the various menus work.

Kind of like setting up the NIC in the OS before anything asks for network access, so that every network access isn't burdened with having to set up the network access. If the driver is already loaded then a variety of potential UEFI network code could just use it (PXE, HTTP, iSCSI, various crap from vendors like pre-OS firmware download)

We will see, but *so far* Ford has not been as aggressive about that sort of thing as BMW or Chevy. The BlueCruise requires actively curated lidar maps, so at least they have a rationale for that being an ongoing subscription. The other subscriptions are similar, updating GPS maps (who needs those with phone) and data connectivity (but if you have a phone, you don't need it). So far they haven't charged for remote vehicle services which arguably could be charged for the SIM service and/or server infrastructure they have.

Note that their point is they state they had the car's onboard system also provide AC to the load side, making the cost lower to incrementally make it a backup unit.

Most solutions provide DC and a separate inverter is required to power the house.

Presumably this came from the desire to consolidate things and wanted to do the 'plug power tools into the truck' feature and the delta to get to 'car side house scale inverter' was appealing.

I haven't looked into this detail, but if you do a network capture, you are likely to see some ipv6 link local activity during boot even if the server is never going to pxe boot. As it boots, it loads a network stack and generally becomes reachable ahead of any actual use. It may refrain from DHCP unless you do an activity that will call for it, but likely will be reachable over ipv6 link local.

Isn't a bubble bursting almost certainly a correction in general? What would you have expected to see in a bubble bursting?

The 401k will just become 401.

In another company, the employee could *apply* for the voluntary exit, but management reserved the right to decline to accept in 'special circumstances'.

There was a lot of pressure to accept of course, but they did cover the scenario of making sure they can keep someone if they thought they could not afford it.

The key is that either way, the severance is the same. When my company last did a voluntary buyout, it was more than the standard severance to sweeten the pot. If it is equal to severance, then people would be inclined to stick it out unless they *really* were looking to leave anyway.

If you stick it out, you get normal pay until the layoffs actually happen, and if you are so unlucky to be out of work for over 39 weeks, then you can start the UI checks to get that once the severance 'runs out'.

I'll broadly agree that self-hosting even when easy is skipped by most people, but funny to use email as the shining example of a relatively easy thing to self-host, that's one of the messiest things to try to self-host. But it is easy to point out that the vast bulk of AWS/Azure business is 'stuff people don't bother to self-host' and I know a lot of folks that would rather open a web hosted paint application than just start an already installed paint application.

I do think that the 'pure AI' companies are vulnerable to being rolled over in the long term by the likes of Microsoft, Apple, and Google. The companies that in various ways control the 'onramps' to this sort of tech (e.g. my company exclusively gives money to Microsoft for access to the models, because that's what they are used to doing for so much other spend).

So the private investors will fuel profit taking with IPO sell-off and the debt load may result in the company going bankrupt and the pieces being picked up by an older tech company.

One of the most obnoxious things about AI advocates is that they are awfully opinionated on my specific work even if they don't know what my specific work even is. So they see it working well in some areas and when I express a nuanced experience that isn't a slam dunk except in certain situations, they are disdainful that I am not all-in.

One concrete example, some guy who has never written or managed code (not even vibe coding), asked if I used git and I said sure, and he informed me that I should change to something that was more AI native based on what he had read online. People reading random tech articles are once again trying to "help" people that get to read the same articles, but without actual experience one way or another. At least the ones that have successful vibe coding have a leg to stand on, but still oversimplifying a very nuanced domain to a boolean 'ai can do all of it it: yes/no' is obnoxious

I doubt that. They may have wondered if it was *worth* the price of the computers at the time, but they were not debating the capabilities.

That facet certainly exists here about token pricing and how it will evolve and in a larger sense about whether it is worth the footprint, and there's every possibility that those concerns will ease with time like they did for computers doing calculations.

The issue here is that folks are treating software development as a monolithic thing. Even very milquetoast software development demanded skill and tedium, but GenAI can chew through the milquetoast scenarios adequately if you are careful and know what you are doing. People who live in that realm then seem to get the mindset that reality applies to the entire domain of software development equally. We have a much more weird subjective results than computers being able to calculate.

Broadly speaking, I find agentic coding to be even more exhausting (and expensive) than AI augmented completion. It's babysitting a mechanism that can screw up at any time, so it involves a *lot* more exhaustive work to make sure you have a harness to let the model try and retry with objective feedback very quickly. A continuing issue being that it fails to recognize an inability to do something but tries to do something anyway, which means any result that is not objectively measured in strict terms is at risk of weird drift.

Today I took a swing and it did a few weird things in my domain. Issue being here there's documentation of a standard but the very first and reference implementation deviated from the documentation, so every implementation was based on the reality rather than documentation. This particular scenario was very specific and you would have had to know very specifically about this risk to warn the model about that sort of mistake. It had a variety of legitimate inputs to process but dropped them without error because it didn't make sense and so it assumed malformed data.

It really depends on your inclinations and problem domain. If you are making a straightforward web ui interface to a fairly straightforward data set, then you can get pretty far. If you have requirements that aren't very picky and you can tolerate some drift, it can get pretty far. If you work in pretty esoteric spaces, then you have to either use it to accelerate and correct code by code or you have to spend a maddening amount of time describing all sorts of stuff to *not* do.

Completions are useful especially for boilerplate and such.

Seems like this pretty much, though perhaps the more interesting piece is that 'generate a bunch of tokens consistent with human output associated with the environment without more specific direction' influenced the models to have what seemed to be better tokens generated later when they had to now be consistent with specific scenarios.

Though I'm too lazy to read the paper and the 'generally beat' phrasing gives me some wondering about how definitive this observation is versus how much of it might be finding what they wanted to find in the results.

As much as it can apply to online communities in general including slashdot, Reddit and reddit-likes *really* take the cake for creating circle-jerk communities. Creating niche communities with moderators that ban at any comment they didn't want to see. Saw a reply to one of my comments that I thought to be a bit dumb (basically, that we should replace TLS certificates with blockchain), but not horribly unforgiveable or anything, and the comment got removed and the user banned from the community. Mod saw 'blockchain' and while I understand a negative gut reaction, nothing that should have rated a moderator going that far.

Alternatively, some people in that subreddit can't stand that anyone could express valid concerns about Tesla and decides that it must be some irrational, inexplicable blind anti-Tesla rather than informed and real concerns.