I don't think there is a solution. In all seriousness, if I were starting my career from scratch today, I would avoid anything that can be done purely remotely, and quite likely go into a skilled trade - Not romanticizing "hands-on" work, I realize it has its own down-sides, but it's becoming increasingly clear we'll still have elevator techs and plumbers longer than we'll have programmers and accountants.

AI has effectively already killed white collar jobs going forward, whether or not those outside tech have noticed yet. It can more-or-less replace junior-level workers today, and with no juniors there will be no seniors later and no principals twenty+ years from now. Though even if we somehow find a way to backfill the experience pipeline, I have little doubt AI will be coming for even the best of us within a decade. Maybe it'll hit some unforeseen ceiling before then, but that's not a bet I'm eager to take.

Respectfully, no, it absolutely doesn't.

Their reasoning sounds plausible only if read from a "business weasel" perspective. If there's a market for RPis with more lower quality RAM, nobody is "undercutting" RPF; they're selling the products they want to, at the price they want to, and choosing not to offer big/slow/cheap OEM RAM configurations. And even if someone could undercut them on the exact same components - So what??? RPF may be a non-profit, but I am not!

The RPi is specifically targeted at DIY'ers, providing a cheap and stable base platform for us to add on whatever freaky shit we want to. Blocking owners from doing exactly that, whether it mean adding on a toaster or oodles of garbage RAM, is some classic Apple-level control freak BS and fundamentally antithetical to their entire purpose. Buh-bye goodwill when it looks like RPi is working hard to make itself just another whore of an SBC manufacturer. And I can promise RPF if they really want to compete in that market, China is going to eat them for lunch.

Whoosh!

Is Nvidia, an S&P500 listed company which grew 8x faster than Bitcoin over the same period, also just gambling?

That said, let's be serious for a moment - The real implied payoff here is access to "A network of hundreds of instructors, hiring partners and guest speakers includes OpenAI co-founder Sam Altman, Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang, neuroscientist Andrew Huberman and Microsoft chairman and CEO Satya Nadella".

Of course, that's really just going to be for the "Founding" class hand-picked (and largely sired) by those same big names. By the time suckers are signing up to pay for that access, the school will be just another diploma mill milking naive upper middle class kids "on par with the cost of an elite private university", only to discover the curriculum is 100% pre-recorded webinars in every way inferior to the likes of OpenCourseWare or Khan Academy's free videos on YouTube.

That's total, not YoY. Calculating since the first time BTC received serious attention in late 2013 to today's price, BTC gained 73.3x in 13 years, or 39% YoY average. Over the same 13 years, Nvidia went from a 2013 high of 0.41 to a high yesterday of 229.98, for a mind-blowing 561x gain, or 62% YoY. Admittedly Nvidia is unique in that regard, though we could come up with another handful in the 40x range. And if we want to bring the likes of Kalshi into the mix, you can find high double digit gains almost on a daily basis (though I won't defend that as any more legitimate than your local bookie).

The more important problem with your phrasing is the word "investment". BTC is not an investment, it's an intangible commodity. It has no fundamentals, no sales, no revenue, no debt, no equity, no overhead (though the cost of mining has stayed in the same ballpark as the price per BTC for the simple reason that if it goes lower than the expected cost of power, more people mine, and vice-versa). It is "worth" what someone is willing to pay for it, no more, and no less.

Despite what the haters may feel, it's not a scam. It sure as hell isn't something Grandma should be day-trading in her retirement portfolio; but that's a function of volatility, not because it's any more or less safe than gold or FCOJ.

During the campaign, she accurately predicted almost every atrocity the administration has inflicted on both the US and the world in general, over the past two years.

When our Stupor Intelligent admin accuses his enemies of something, it's because he did the same thing earlier that day. See the connection? We just need to figure out how Hunter Biden's penis factors in, and where Obama was on 9/11.

Pssst - President Autopen has been out of office for 611 days. And before you go there, Smart Black President has been out of office for 3543 days.

At some point you need to accept reality: If there's a turd sitting on (or at) the Resolute Desk, it wasn't teleported there from the past.

Is it weird I won't even let AI tell me how to make a hotdog without double-checking its sources... Yet I would be sleeping a hell of a lot better if our super high IQ administration would just outsource all their thinking to it?

Not trying to be snarky here, but that's always been the simplest answer to successful collaboration on a coding project.

And even on solo projects it doesn't hurt. Sure, I can keep track of a few thousand lines of code (and to be clear I'm not paid by the line) in my head on a solo project. Above that - or throw one junior engineer in the mix as a "helper" - and all bets are off. Document, document, document, and then stick to the plan.

According https://militaryspend.org/iran... there are between 9,044 and 18,371 civilian casualties in Iran due to US air strikes. So yes, preventing collateral damage of civilians is not a priority at Pete Hegseth's "Department of War".

My violence premise is based on the fact that Trump has ordered military strikes on seven different countries during his second term so far. https://factually.co/fact-chec...

Every authoritarian regime needs some form of multi-generational conflict to justify their power over the people. Trumpism is a form of anti-democratic, authoritarian-oligarchy that exists only within the context of an eternal conflict. The conflicts only exist to distract the people from Trump and his oligarch's corruption, abuse of power, and outright theft from the American people.

I wouldn't, simply because you can get similar specs for significantly less money. Unless that magical NPU is somehow worth (and notice I didn't say "costs") $200+, this is still just a Chromebook toy with a bit more horsepower.

Rather, I think the real intent behind this is clear - It's a lame attempt to force Gemini onto yet more uninterested customers. "You all refused to download it as an app, but how about if we charge you twice as much and make it a required component of the OS itself? Now do you want it?"

I'm not saying this as anti-Amazon or pro-AI (and certainly not pro-Meta!), but the key difference here is people are choosing to send proxy shoppers because they can't stand how crappy the store itself is. The closest analogous physical situation would be Walmart refusing to let your aunt pick up some half&half for you.

That said, I'm not really sure why Amazon wants to die on this hill considering it's already been decided by the 9th circuit in Amazon v. Perplexity 2026. An agent acting on behalf of its user cannot be considered "unauthorized" access under CFAA or CDAFA as long as the user themself had a right to the same content accessed.

Amazon might be able to spin this into a TOS issue, but that has its own risks - Anyone TOSsed from a platform clearly won't be buying anything from it, "sponsored" or otherwise. And dissecting that a bit further, the entire question only exists today because we're currently in a grey area between viewing agents as an external resource vs just another tool built into the browser (the latter was the heart of the Perplexity case). Assuming people eventually come to love the bomb, telling our browser to go buy something on Amazon will become technologically indistinguishable from doing it ourselves.

In May 2025, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth disbanded the Civilian Protection Center of Excellence in the Pentagon, because in his own words, he wanted a military "focused on lethality". I think that is the real story. Pete Hegseth only cares about civilian casualties if they could potentially become a liability to himself or the President. That is also why the President ordered Marco Rubio to "dismantle" the ICC "brick by brick".

To better understand the Maven system, I highly recommend reading the book, "Project Maven" by Katrina Manson. In it she does a deep dive into the history of Maven, what it can and cannot do, and how it can be misused in the wrong hands. Maven was never intended to be a stand-alone targeting system, and the people who created it were very aware of the deficiencies of relying solely on an AI system to make military decisions. It is a great read for any military nerd who wants to understand the history of AI in military planning, and why these systems were created.

I think the blame can be correctly applied to Pete Hegseth, and Donald Trump for ordering this war, and for ordering the military to stop considering "collateral damage" when making targeting decisions. Pete Hegseth bragged about the military striking 13,000 targets in the first month of the Iran war. This is only possible if you forgo the traditional target development process, and strike targets based on thin or no current intelligence, no collateral damage analysis, and no weaponering (selecting appropriate ordnance for the target) considerations. It appears the military just took a long list of potential military targets and ordered strikes on all of them without any verification or thought of how those destroying those targets ties into a greater military strategy. This retired military officer believes that violence was the military strategy.

In my opinion, Donald Trump, Pete Hegseth and their many acolytes believe that violence is how you win human conflict, and the side that is more violent will win. Military officers who do not share his world view are suspect, possibly woke, and have to be purged. In his word view all targets are good military targets, even civilians, if their deaths result in the desired outcome, regime change in Iran. It is the same world view that has taken over policing of minority communities in America, ICE enforcement to include shooting down protesters, or Israel's military operations in Gaza and Lebanon. What military history teaches us is that unmitigated violence doesn't win wars, but only prolongs them and turns them into multi-generational wars.

And it didn't work at Nuremberg either.