Better a few Boomers lose their shirts than decades or centuries of techno-fascism.

Because only boomers have investments.

Your whining is the same thing that has been said for centuries whenever a new technology or process has come along. I can guarantee you would have been one of those whining when the cotton gin was invented, or cars and airplanes started being made. This is how society advances. If you don't like, you don't have to participate.

You need rage bait and outrage porn to engage people on the internet

On r/lawncare, it's people's shoes and dogs shitting on the lawn. On r/laundry, it's people either deliberately telling you what piece of clothing is dirty and asking how to clean it, or showing the labels.

I don't have an account, but even I can recognize this astroturfing. It's being deliberately done to get views.

What delusional world do you live that the taxpayers don't have a right to know where their tax dollars are being spent?

Companies are private entities. They do not operate under the same rules as government. Your example is invalid.

It's called transparency. It's what good government does. When you work for the government you give up some of your privacy becausse you are working for the people.

You must work for Trump to think the people don't have a right to know what their government is doing.

I understood that reference. :)

Loser thinking is dropping everything at the drop of a hat based on nothing more than one article written by somebody nobody has heard of on a fringe website.

Loser thinking is dumping tech stocks because they said they might make a few million dollars less in the next 3 months than they anticipated despite them making money hand over fist.

Agreed. If you don't know what you're doing it's hard to even ask for the right thing or know what's possible. For example: I'm currently developing a system that uses a local AI to help debug internal issues. The initial incarnations of it were very slow to start up each command; clearly, it wasn't doing proper KV caching and was having to prefill every turn; it required patches on the llama.cpp fork and our API wrapper, and also adjusting the system prompt to keep variable content at the end. But if you have no idea about KV caching issues, how do you even know something is wrong with the backend, let alone what to tell the AI to fix? You'll end up deciding you need to upgrade the GPU instead.

(That said: "lovingly handcrafted" code is a hilarious phrase that should give any developer who's ever worked on a big corporate software project the giggles, and also, these software devs are clearly people angry at knowing they're going to be let go looking for revenge by badmouthing their boss to the press)

What's with the black leather jacket he always wears? Does he think he's the Fonz? Or a Ramone?

Essentially, his wife and daughter made the choice:

For a bit more on the subject:

DuckDuckGo allows you to do this. On their homepage you can choose between a regular search or an AI search. I have my default page set to no AI.

Escape from Pluto is much easier, and the Pluto-Charon distance is 1/20th of the Earth-Moon distance.

Political appointees should be public, they are accountable. The rest of civil servants are no different to you doing your job at your place of employment.

Civil servants are paid by the tax dollars. The public has a right to know who their tax dollars are going to.

In my state there is a web site where you can look up the salary of those who work for the government. It includes the person's name and their position title.

According to the memo, metrics such as AI adoption rates, token consumption, code changes, and code reviews become "deeply flawed" when they are disconnected from actual results. Turning them into targets, Amazon says, encourages wasteful behavior that clashes with its emphasis on "frugality and simplicity" and can raise both compute bills and software complexity.

It's almost as if they're just now realizing Goodhart's Law exists.

Thank god for that. It was hard enough to learn 9 (now 8) planets at school. Can you imagine having to learn all the names if the hydrostatic equilibrium definition held?

Since when does science work by a standard of "what is easy for children to memorize lists of"? Do we say "There are 8 rivers in the world, and all others are dwarf rivers, which really aren't rivers" to make it easier on kids? Do we say "There are 8 bones in the human body, and all others are dwarf bones, which don't really count as bones"?

That's not how science works. Science is focused on practical distinctions about how things developed and their physical properties relative to each other. Hydrostatic equilibrium is a very practical definition. The process of undergoing relaxation induces metamorphism and releases heat, altering bodies. You go to non-equilibrium bodies if you want to study the primordial makeup of our solar system. You go to equilibrium bodies if you want to study tectonics, volcanism, non-primordial chemistry, and search for past or present life. The boundary could not be more meaningful. Yes, there is a bit of fuzz between equilibrium and non-equilibrium, but the same applies to pretty much all scientific fields.

Supporters of the IAU definition (which I should add was a deeply biased sample, in that it looked like they were headed toward no definition or a hydrostatic equilibrium definition, so most supporters of that left, but the people trying to switch it to an orbit-clearing definition stayed) will argue that it's cleared if the remaining objects are trivial transients or in orbital resonance. But that's not what the IAU definition says. Also they'll point to the Stern-Levison parameter, but (A) that was based on the ability to scatter today's distribution of asteroids, not the primordial distribution, which included outright planetissimals**; and (B) Mars didn't even clear it's own orbit, Jupiter did. Also, in the paper that introduced the Stern-Levison parameter, they argued for a better definition where you combine adjectives and nouns (each with specific implications about the body) as needed to describe its size, composition, etc.

But the OP's point stands, in that it's stupid to say that something is a "dwarf planet", yet not a planet. It's like saying dwarf stars aren't stars or dwarf galaxies aren't galaxies or whatnot. An adjective-noun is almost always a noun, that's how language works. In the cases where an adjective-noun isn't a noun - say, "shooting star" or "slow worm" or whatnot - we treat these as scientifically erroneous colloquialisms, and formalize corrected scientific terminology. We don't do literally the opposite and have science codify misleading language.

Speak for yourself, Pluto is fascinating. Tectonically active. Cryovolcanism so abundant it appears to have formed large mountains by the merger of individual domes. A gigantic scar exposing its mantle, which over time roils in massive convection cells, pockmarked in sublimation pits. Mountains drifting like icebergs and accumulating on the shore. Penetentes (sublimation ice spikes), the size of large hills. A multilayer blue atmosphere, in which organic chemistry occurs, depositing not just organic matter onto its own surface, but that of its moon as well. Active glaciation. A probable subsurface ocean, in contact with rock. Conditions suggesting it was habitable when it formed.

IMHO, it's way more interesting than a number of recognized planets.

(Also, I'm confused by your response. This isn't about the moon, and the moon has no atmosphere for flying)

Yep. Back in the early days of Slashdot, when helium usage would come up, I'd grumble about how wasteful the medical industry was with helium.

It still uses a lot, but it's nowhere near as wasteful as it was before.