Those first 10 are all the same one. 'the.web'

But you're right, it's a cool one. You should grab it.

I don't see a lot of people responding to this nuance. I'm not sure why.

Switching to permanent 'Daylight' time seems incorrect. Switching to permanent 'Standard' time seems like the right answer.

I've seen a lot of these bills come through and it always seems to be the 'Daylight' choice that people fight against. Why is that always added?

If the bill was simply "get rid of 'switching times'" there are few (but there are some) that fight against it. But instead it says "Get rid of switching times and leave it at "Daylight"" It's like they are torpedoing their own bill.

And 'Names' make it worse than 'Numbers.'

Trying to pretend the words on your account somehow mean that's who you are is the problem. This idea that if someone has "Michael Jackson" next to their post then its the actual famous person talking isn't something that can work.

It's better if that name next to people's posts is known to be just 'self-selected words.' Nobody will be fooled into thinking it's Michael Jackson, if there are 5000 different accounts claiming they are Michael Jackson.

Actual 'authentication' shouldn't be done based on your username or any other 'self-selected words.' Instead, there's a 'behind the scenes' unique identifier, and you keep track of the ones you care about.

---

The problem becomes, not one of 'identification', but one of 'discovery.' How do you find the real one? You go to the official source, and they tell you who they are. Then you only care about that one particular "Michael Jackson" and ignore the rest.

Hmm, the Summary does mention Offline payments. So I guess I need to read better.

(Not European, and not a banker.)

If the problem is American companies doing the transactions, why is the solution a 'Digital Euro' and not use an EU backed transaction processor? Why don't you keep using 'normal Euros' in 'debit-card like transactions' but have the processing be done by a more acceptable organization?

In short...what's the difference between a 'digital Euro' and any sort of 'digital monetary transaction?'

Is it the 'wallet?' Instead of having your money in a bank, it's in a 'wallet' (where it can get tossed in the rubbish and make you dig about a landfill?)

Do these wallets support 'offline transactions?' Can I walk up to the guy in the middle of a forest and give him 5 Bucks? (5 quid?) Or, do I have to have access to the network to authenticate the transaction? If these 'digital Euro' had support for offline transactions, that might be a way they are different from normal electronic banking.

At least in my neck of the woods, we have ZERO spare water. We're in a 'negative water' situation. Using any water is a problem. That makes the narrative that data-centers are 'water hungry' very effective at causing unrest.

I've been using Moto phones exclusively for as long as I can remember. No real reason except habit, (and they are inexpensive.) That's fun to learn they are consumer friendly as well.

... and it messes up my video game playing.

I don't know that I've performed a rigorous study, but I do find myself going the 'other' direction from everyone else.
That means when I play a game requiring exploration or 'maze solving' that the clues which were obvious to the level designer are often invisible to me, because I turned the wrong direction.

I've noticed the 'not the same' part for a long time. I just don't know which direction I turn by default....cause it's just 'default.'

(BTW, I happen to be left-handed, but the summary seems to say that's not statistically relevant.)

The announcement kept saying "everyone is accounted for" which left it ominously open.

Exactly right.

I really like their approach, and it should be the standard approach for ALL AI generated work.

You can use AI, but you have to verify/validate it. You can't just dump the results without making sure you reviewed the content. Finding obvious stuff that 'would' have been noticed if you actually read through it, and 'should' have been cleaned up is proof that you didn't adequately review it.

What's easier to find, a left-over chat prompt, or the fact that the data was duplicated and all the results were doubled? If you're reviewing for the second, you would have already noticed the first and fixed it.

This concept should be part of all AI pathways: "Does the model on your flier have 8 fingers?" "Did you check in source code that still contains hallucinated function calls?" "Does your legal brief refer to non-existent cases?" You are penalized. It's not because you used AI...it's because you didn't do YOUR part of making sure the AI didn't screw it up.

Is there a reason why Don Ho doesn't like the port?

I can understand him being upset at the misappropriation of his Trademarks, and I think he should protect them. It's all good.

However, is there something wrong with the port? Wouldn't a more 'progressive' option to be to accept the pull request and start advertising MacOS compatibility as part of the main project?

Is it just junk code? Is it too divergent? Does he specifically NOT want ports to other OSes?

(Or maybe it was never offered and Letov won't allow the collaboration. But, in that cause couldn't Ho fork Letov and consume it anyway?)

"It's totally different in a place like the US. We have more land than we could reasonably populate and plenty of natural resources. We could absorb enormous numbers of people and we would be better off for it."

We're running out of water. No where in the West (except maybe PNW) has enough water for the people they have already. Any growth will just exacerbate that. Lotsa land. No water.

This is what I came to say:

The very premise of how LLMs work mean that nothing they ever do is 'clean room.' If you use an LLM you forego the 'clean room' argument.

Now, I guess you could take special effort to train your LLM only on code which you can verify is 'clean.' Good luck on that. If you have that much code that you can coerce and LLM to accurately rebuild an software product, then you would have already written that software product 3 times yourself.

It says 'display-less' so it's not AR...which I thought was the whole point.
From what I've people describe the uses as being the same as airpods with the addition of taking video/pictures.

Why use the 'glasses' form-factor when you're not using your eyeballs for any of the interaction?

Is that it? Is it just a convenient place to hang a camera? Also, are people expected to get prescription lenses for these things...or are normally sighted people now walking about with glasses on....just because?

I keep wondering if it's the 'stealth' factor. Are they 'spy' glasses and made to look completely normal? Did someone decide that Google Glass was 'too obvious' and people would know you're walking around with a camera on your head? So they have to make a camera that (most) people wouldn't recognize? That seems a bit illegal. ;)

(one guy said, "we're not allowed to have airpods at work, so I use these instead." (that's totally going to backfire, and your boss won't be amused.))

If you outlaw guns...only outlaws will have guns. (swap guns with tech you care about)

Blocking Meta simply leaves the market open for someone less scrupulous. (Yes, they exist.)

Innovation should be examined, understood, integrated, not 'blocked.'

Of course, there's also the concept that 'locks are simply there to keep honest people honest.'