Tim Waltz is a criminal mastermind. He's been hacking other states' water so that he can keep all 10,000 of his lakes topped off at the expense of hard working Americans.

Changing out running code on the fly probably increases the number of corner cases by an order of magnitude.

What could possibly go wrong?

This "AI" seems to be severely lacking in training, in that no superior/invincible force (e.g. a party simulating law enforcement) showed up and demonstrated the downside to taking certain actions.

I'm sure that was the intent, but (I think) it actually parses the other way. It's messy, so I'm not sure, but that's how I read it.

But the individual didn't destroy it. The agent did the physical act of destroying it.

Suppose you were at the border with your phone, and the agent confiscated it.
Then the agent had said, how do i get into this phone?
You said, "put it in a blender".
If the agent puts it in the blender, the agent destroyed it, not you.

Now clearly, one would expect the agent to know that putting it in a blender would destroy it.

And equally clearly the inference here is that the agent did not know that the password he was given would wipe the phone as part of opening it. But isn't the onus still on the officer?

If it had been a physical safe, and you gave him the code, but the safe contained something that would self-destruct in exposure to air, and must be opened inside an enclosure with inert gas to get at the contents... who would be responsible for destroying the evidence inside the safe?

As a second scenario, what if you had printed a PIN password on a piece of paper and included that in your wallet. If the agent had confiscated your wallet and discovered the paper; and then used that password on your phone? If that was your duress password, who is responsible for destroying evidence in that case?

Legally, Isn't the onus ultimately still on the agent to apply caution before pushing buttons on a device they confiscated?

To blame you the suspect for destroying evidence on something the agent had custody and full physical control over seems a bit far fetched to me.

Dammit, can't anyone make some stylish cyber-shoes? That looks like shit! Anyone who goes around upskirt-snapping with shoes like that, is going to get laughed out of the ballroom by all the snobs.

Is it ok if I show up in regular glasses, but where an always-on LED is attached to the one of the corners? (I understand pervs are falling out of popularity, but that doesn't mean we need to abandon the whole aesthetic!)

But does a border search of a US Citizen have such standing as a court order or warrant? What was the basis of the request to inspect the device-- was there information that he could be a child pornographer, or was he just on a watch list because of his occupation?

Can a prosecutor prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was wiped with a duress password with the intent of hiding criminal activity, or maybe it was wiped in advance? Can the prosecution get a court warrant to search the individual's home based solely on the wiped device?

On a 13" screen most people would have scaling enabled to see it anyway. Not really sure its worth the extra horsepower to push quadruple the pixels, and average them out.

Don't get me wrong, I love 4k screens. My desktop has a pair of 32" 120hz 4k screens.

But on a laptop, especially a 13" model, my priority is going to be battery life, not performance; so 4k is not a hard requirement. Plus this unit features a more old school 3:2 aspect ratio which is arguably more practical and useful than a 1.78:1 widescreen at 13".

Higher than a 13" dell xps. Higher than the 13" Macbook Neo. Higher than a 13" Macbook air... hell it just edges out the display on the Macbook air 15".

Its 120Hz. It's matte. It's touchscreen (if you care).
It seems to be a very solid 13" laptop screen overall.

The factual reality it ignores is that mistakes by the judicial system in cases covering petty crime, family court, domestic disputes, civil torts, etc., have nothing whatsoever to do with mistakes made in capital cases. Asserting that mistakes made in a local municipal court, which would never see a capital case, is grounds for banning capital punishment is like saying that worms in avocados imported from Mexico means the sale of all fruit grown in the US should be banned.

Conflating capital cases with non-capital cases works against your cause, not for it. If you don't understand that, then you are less likely to achieve your goals. Zealotry -- which is fundamentally a political pose -- is not an efficient means to create change.

That is the most politically saturated comment I've read on Slashdot in years. It completely ignores factual reality in order to push a specific agenda.

Here's a hint: if you want your cause to be taken seriously, don't become blinded by zealotry. In this case, there are plenty enough things wrong with the death penalty that you don't need to make this sort of off-putting overgeneralization, and, by doing so, you are harming your cause, rather than helping it.

I think there are a few improtant subtleties to it. Namely that Nvidia is providing a [loan] guarantee and not an actual loan. It is also unclear if this guarantee is on the data center, or for the power purchase agreement. So, when OpenAI can't pay for whatever it is, Nvidia is responsible for payments. Depending on the terms of the deal, the risk could actually be quite low for Nvidia. Something similar goes for financing chips with a >300% margin-- payments after the a year or so are pure profit.

It sounds like the guarantee is on a PPA and not data center build based on the summary. That is a pretty important distinction as a PPA is a very different kind of risk than a compute facility (especially given grid shortfalls for projected growth).

So as I understand it, current AI models need about two orders of magnitude efficiency improvement to be sustainable as a business. You burst the bubble if usage growth doesn't exceed roughly infrastructure growth divided by efficiency improvement-- flat usage means a 10x growth in infrastructure requires a 10x efficiency improvement. There is some fudge factor to cover sunk costs, but I'm not sure how meaningful that is as you talk about orders of magnitude.

Most of what AI is useful for today could be done more efficiently with small models, and the idea of AGI is a long long time away despite what true believers hold as gospel. That, from my limited understanding is where most of the token spend is today-- the money could easily be starved in that context.