I deleted my account years ago after the 2012 hack, their security was and (probably still is) shit; couldn't even salt their passwords. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

I look at it from time to time, as much as I can see as a guest, and holy shit it's become just a big circle jerk, people posting self-congratulatory tripe and 'deep thoughts' [sic], thinking they are original and insightful, and so much of it looks like AI or people just stealing and pasting shit from elsewhere.

I'm sure some people still use it for finding jobs, I've only ever found mine from direct references/referrals from people I know and places I've worked. Even when I still had an account, it was annoying how many recruiters would contact me with listings that often had no relation at all to my experience and skills.

This kind of automation ultimately causes problems for 'regular' every day consumers and gets hijacked by a smaller group of assholes; plus the technology isn't mature enough to be trusted. So what happens when an agent runs amok, buys a too many of x, and the user says 'wait! I didn't want 100, I want to you to eat the cost of me returning it, and company y says, too fucking bad you bought it' -- who's liable? (my answer is the dumbass with the agent, but who knows how it will pan out)

Only a few years ago some of the kind of stuffs agents do (or at least have access to) we'd call a virus or malware, how things change.

Nova Learning surveyed 463 students in 2025 and 677 students in 2026.

So at a standard 95% confidence level, a sample size of n = 463 carries a margin of error of roughly of + or - 4.55%. A sample size of n = 677 narrows that margin to about + or - 3.77%. While some of the changes are outside of this range, many are not.

I also wonder who they asked " sample consists primarily of middle and high school students from the U.S. West Coast " So Bay Area, LA, Seattle? wealthy kids, middle class? private school, public?

I dunno, the numbers are interesting but I think a larger study with more distribution might be more helpful.

Apples and oranges, generated drama and clickbait. Move along..

I was thinking the same, they play with numbers so that the unemployment rate looks better than it is, discouraged workers, those who haven't looked in the last 4 weeks (which could for a variety of reasons, illness, family issues, taking time to retrain, transportation problems, etc.), or a parent who has to stay home because childcare is insanely expensive and they'd spend more on it than they'd make (yes, it actually can happen). And people giving up looking for working or just retiring a bit early because their career it shot (I'm thinking AI replaced jobs) isn't a good thing.

Also, there's the issues of being underemployed, or taking jobs at a lower wage than they would normally, etc. So while they may be 'employed' their situation has degraded compared to the past.

This seems to be the de facto way companies are operating now, my only hope if enough people just say no thanks (or f*ck off ! more appropriately) that they will back off, but I'm not optimistic. Doctorow's book actually does a really nice job using case studies to outline how the path the enshitification process happens, Facebook / Meta is pretty much the poster child for it.

Anything with software now, be it a dishwasher, a car, a watch, these asshole companies are either using your data for their benefit, or charging you to access features that should simply be included (or in some case are actually already there but turned off unless you fork over $x per month).

that us Gen X'ers played as kids, only more expensive, with higher stakes and when it goes all wrong -- instead of us all laughing like we did as kids, you lose clients, or people get fired, or someones loses money, etc.

All of these massive LLM companies were built on stealing copyrighted materials and other prior work to train their models (and then profit from it without paying for the data/images/etc), so the whole thing is hilariously thick with irony. "Hey, you can't steal the sh*t I stole!"

Now where did I put that teeny tiny violin...

I watched the trailer, sure the visuals looks 'nice', but I wasn't blown away. The AI component is problematic imo.

Maybe it was the way to trailer was put together but it feels like it's very a much a scripted, on the rails experience, which doesn't really interest me. Though it seems a lot of high budget 'pretty' action games are this way now.

I thought the YouTube comments were interesting, they felt AI to me, every one a positive one liner, really? Thought it's the official TombRaider channel, so heavily censored and curated I'm sure. If you look at other comment sources, it's far from pure glazing...

Probably trying to earn some brownie points after forcing Fitbit users to their much hated & maligned Google Health app, with no option to keep the original app.

https://www.droid-life.com/202...
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...
https://www.androidauthority.c...
https://kotaku.com/google-fitb...

I used their CPX (https://www.adafruit.com/product/3333) in some introductory programming/electronics classes at my school. They're a cool company in my experience, run by nerds, affordable, and big supporters of education & teachers.

I've never heard of Flux.ai, but they can Flux off if they're messing with Adafruit...

so the promo headline is fake too

"Despite what some chatbot or Murdoch-owned newspaper told you, Hell Grind, the 95-minute farting-demon movie generated by AI, did not premiere at the Cannes Film Festival, as the Wall Street Journal reported this week. Per Futurism, Hell Grind was “not screened as part of the official Festival de Cannes program,” according to a festival spokesperson. Though outlets like Screen Daily and the Journal say otherwise, the film screened at “an industry event organized by third parties in Cannes,” the city, not the festival. "

https://www.avclub.com/ai-movi...

or just used to make the visuals? Because the 'plot' seems like derivative slop with ideas/scenes I've seen 100x, which would be exactly what AI was trained on.

I didn't even watch the whole thing honestly, it felt more like a CGI cutscene promo for a video game with some contrived stupid ass story.

Study after study shows kids do better in school, are more engaged, and more social when phones are out of the picture. 'Social' media is exactly the opposite, it's isolating and anxiety inducing for a lot of teens.

I think there's a lot of adults I know who might be better off too. I definitely have some friends / colleagues who waste so much time on it, and it mostly just seems to make them anxious or irate -- but as far as the platforms are considered, who cares as long as they're 'engaged' with it...