That's the problem with UI and UX designers. Even when something is already good they're looking to change it to something else if for no reason other than for the sake of change itself. Design something good and leave it the hell alone. The icons can change when there's a major revision to the OS. Otherwise it's pointless wankery.

I can't think of one meaningful change Apple or Microsoft have made to the look and feel of their respective operating systems over the last two decades that was absolutely necessary. Most of it has been shuffling stuff around or trying to make it look new and shiny. Invest that time in making it faster and more stable instead. I don't need major changes more than once a decade. It's unlikely there are many things actually worth changing anyway.

When they die I hope that they have to spend a minute in purgatory for every minute of someone's time they wasted with pointless UI changes over the years. I can think of a few who will be stuck there for a small eternity. Some might even be beyond redemption. I can easily imagine them trying to rearranging the circles of hell.

These sound like they're being used to build and test software. That's an important part of development, but it's not critical infrastructure that the business absolutely needs to be up 24/7. If they buy the cheapest Mini, it's $600 each and that's $120,000 in hardware costs. They may have some replacements over the life of the hardware, but they'll be able to use those for another five years at the least. Someone needs to wrangle those machines so add another $120,000 for that. Apple's chips are quite efficient so while they will need to pay power and cooling costs to host their own hardware as well, it won't be that bad. All in all it's going to be a lot less expensive for something that doesn't really need to be in the cloud or gain much from being there aside from easy scaling of resources.

Won't happen, at least not with my books.

There is a reason writing the last one took two years. Many of its passages have very carefully considered wordings. Intentional ambiguities. Alliterations. Words chosen because the other term for the same thing is too similar to another thing that occurs in the same paragraph. Names picked with intention, by the sound of them (harsher or softer, for example).

I've used AI extensively in many fields. Including translations. It's pretty good for normal texts like newspaper articles or Wikipedia or something. But for a book, where the emotional impact of things matter, where you can't just substitute one words for a synonym and get the same effect - no, I don't think so.

This is one area where even I with a general positive attitude to AI want a human translator with whom I can discuss these things and where I can get a feeling of "did she understand this part of the book and why it's described this way?".

...The AI will grow sentient, irradiate the crabs to make them larger and stronger, merge with their nervous system, and these Bionic Crabs will then hijack ships and battle the humans for control of major cities. An injured renegade Google employee will gave a child a special fob that can stop them, but only if...

Microsoft owns the word Word.

My competing product is Macrohard Wad

Ironically few of their products are "visual" any more. They got rid of WYSIWYG in their dev tools so now devs have to play fiddle faddle to get stuff to look right, and even then DOM shuffles them around in drunk ways under different conditions. It's a time-drain.

WYSIWYG isn't evil, it just needed a few tweaks to adapt. But fadsters were too quick to toss it out with the bathwater over buzzword addiction. Gittoffmylawn!

This is an article about the FBI. If it were the CIA they would've already overthrown the Canadian government and installed puppets to do their bidding without openly asking. The FBI is too busy entrapping retards into committing terrorist acts in the U.S. to have time to go after Canadians, retarded or not. Canada should ignore them. They're probably more harmless than the ATF that would shoot their dogs and possibly even their moose. Just tell the FBI to send any requests through a respectable and fearsome agency like the BIA or USDA if they want an actual response.

"Aflac" and nobody will ever fight for your name. Plus, it makes for a memorable duck mascot.

(Although rumor is they are fighting with Duck Duck Go over the mascot.)

Maybe its variable: acceleration starts, stops, reverses, rinse, repeat...

"China will win social unrest"

u b from Gen-LB: Lawn Booters

and like instant gra

Does is matter much if you lose a job because of AI instead of offshoring or any other reason? What prevents a company from eliminating jobs because they've contracted with a third party that provides the services for them that may be done in let or whole by AI and not reporting it because they're not replacing anyone with AI themselves? They may not even know to what extent AI is being used by that third party to even be able to report it. Maybe they hired a consultant that's actually an AI masquerading as human.

If the government wants to do something actually useful it should try to find ways to make it easier for people lacking jobs to find employment. This just sounds like a shakedown signal whereby politicians alert companies that they'd better open their pocketbooks and contribute to the reelection fund lest they find themselves the target of legislation designed to shit all over them. Fortunately for these companies, politicians are stupid enough that they'll play themselves and wind up with yet another case of regulatory capture where the companies make rules to their own benefit even beyond what politicians can extort.

This will probably die in committee or somewhere else along the way after someone pays up, but it won't do anything useful. Unless it also measures jobs created because of AI or productivity gains in other workers resulting from its use, it's a one-sided look at the problem. They may as well require similar reporting on all of the negative impacts of electric vehicles that ignore any benefits they bring.

...if there are only toothless penalties on the plutocrats who lie and cheat, the data will useless. They like to hide the reasons they cut staff to keep investors from knowing what's really going on.

Another way to say this: any bill that actually punishes slimy plutocrats will likely never pass.

Our generation might not like it, but if our kids get used to it, insects are a great food source. Same phylum as crabs.