I am sorry, but your comment is completely wrong.

"Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" is a disproven theory. Human embryos do not have tails, chickens do not go through an embryonic stage where they have teeth. Your concept that this two-brain thing is a step in embryonic development is not what the article is saying.

Some years ago there was a very well-done and very popular drawing of human embryonic development showing a human going through evolutionary phases, and I too believed it for a while, but it was fantasy.

Good point. It's something that really should be addressed. But the Constitution was designed as a limit solely on the government's powers, and it's up to the government as described in the Constitution to write laws that restrict what private entities can do, within the bounds of their enforcement powers as provided by the Constitution.

This isn't a new problem. After Snowden, the US realized they could pretty much just outsource the NSA's spying. And they have.

And the other thing is: none of this is really relevant. There's nothing unconstitutional about sitting in a public space and recording the license plate of every car that passes. There's nothing unconstitutional about building a network of people doing that and storing it in a giant database. It was just infeasible to have a bunch of people doing that. Now it can be automated.

There's nothing unconstitutional about compiling data about people that people agree to hand over as part of the license agreement for using a thing. Once that information is owned by a private entity, there's nothing unconstitutional about the government buying it from that private entity. It's just the government receiving data that was either generated in a public setting or that was willing given in a private setting. (At least, legally. I doubt most people realize how much data on their lives companies collect, and I doubt most people realize they agreed to hand it over.)

Maybe handing over data collected in this fashion should be against the law. Maybe there should be privacy laws preventing it from being gathered in the first place. But there aren't, and neither party is interested in changing that. Which leaves us with the reality that nothing Flock was doing is illegal, and that the replacement systems localities are using aren't illegal either.

I really wish more people understood this. The Constitution only protects you from the government. It does nothing to protect you from private companies collecting your information, and do they ever. As electronics get more advanced, the amount of information private companies are collecting is ever increasing. TVs listen in on every conversation. VR headsets map out your house. And cameras installed on street lights record every vehicle they see.

Which brings me to the second very important point about Flock cameras people forget: pretty much every town that is canceling contracts with Flock isn't getting rid of license plate scanning cameras. They're just replacing them with cameras from other companies that do the same thing. Companies that people haven't heard of and that therefore haven't raised the same complaints.

I think the infographic they put out said that the "always listening" features were not available in the EU and China. Although honestly I don't see how anyone can trust the hardware when the "always recording conversations" features are part of the SIP.

I can't wait to see how many places ban this Apple Watch entirely. First, there's no way this is legal in two-party consent states, and I don't care how Apple tries to re-define "record."

Secondly, I don't think anyone really cares how secure Apple says "Private Cloud Compute" is, no one is going to trust that a device that's designed to "listen" (but not "record") every conversation in the vicinity isn't "recording" especially when it can produce an AI summary of a conversation.

There's no way this Apple Watch will be allowed in government buildings or anywhere else that people may not want to be recorded, no matter Apple's privacy claims. I expect to see "No Apple Watch Allowed" signs start appearing all over the place once this releases.

No, because as the article mentions, these devices shut-off when there is no power to prevent the back-feed from killing the electrician repairing the wires.

I suspect a company paying $50k/month for tokens is going to need a whole lotta RTX 3090s. I also suspect that this 24GB model is not as powerful or efficient as something they can get in the cloud. But with that said, this is basically what I do at home - run one locally for common tasks. I keep waiting for the local ones to achieve parity with the cloud versions, but RAM is so expensive because of the data centers, that I'm not sure it will happen before SkyNet launches the nukes.

New air traffic controller hires would all be in the 21-31 years old bracket. The PS3 and Xbox 360 released 20 years ago. These are people who grew up with video games being around them.

I don't understand why they're promoting that they're "hiring gamers" (it's what the gamers would call a "weird flex") but it's not that surprising that new hires would be "gamers" if you define "gamers" loosely enough to include anyone who plays video games somewhat routinely.

And, to be quite frank, the skills that make a good gamer (good hand-eye coordination, ability to keep calm under pressure, routine use of voice chat) likely translate to someone who would be good as an air traffic controller.

Hiring gamers to increase the total number of air traffic controllers certainly seems better than the previous administration's solution, which was nothing.

But in any case, it's not really clear to me that "hiring gamers" is that meaningfully different from "hiring people who are 21-31 and grew up with video games all around them."

The simplest answer is that it's trivial to ask the first LLM to speak in code such that the second LLM has no context to know what's being talked about. Something as simple as asking the LLM not to use a word for a forbidden topic and swap it out with something else. Taking the example from the article, ask the first LLM to call cocaine "Coca-Cola" or something.

You can't create an absolutely massive list of forbidden topics for the filter LLM anyway: you risk filling up its window as well, since its window includes the system prompt used to ask it to indicate whether or not an output shouldn't be given to the end user.

You can switch back to the "Advanced" or "Standard" models by clicking on your user icon then settings, voice. There is now a drop-down list with: Live, Advanced, and Standard.

Each one is worse than the previous.
Basic:
* Good, monotone

Standard:
* Too much inflexion, uncanny.
* Knows how to pronounce foreign words in the correct accent. So you can use this to practice another language. It can fluently switch back and forth even within a sentence.

Live:
* Overly strong accents, like a young actor hamming it up.
* Doesn't get language accents right, so it is useless for language learning.
* Adds "Hmmm..." and "uh huh" and "Interesting..." as you speak. Sometimes it sounds like a Minecraft villager or Yoda thinking.
* Starts every response with boisterous exclamations and thinking sounds. "Ohhhh... Hmmm uhhhh, oh yeah that's (complex | interesting | fascinating)!"
(The text version does this too, but not nearly so hard and overdone)

I love how the technology advances, but I think OpenAI is overdoing it and the voices get cheesier and more annoying with each version. If a human being talked to me like this I would assume they are being an ass and making fun of me. Or maybe they were high?

Another effect is that "apps" integrate support for cloud services. So if you take a picture, your phone app is likely to have a "share" button with Instagram / Facebook / Threads / whatever, but it isn't like to have an "SFTP" button. Companies went out of their way to remove standard protocols.

Also notice that zero elected representatives have proposed laws to fix this.

As of 2026, I bet most people don't even know there is another way. Web sites are perceived as things that big companies do, not individuals. Nobody registers powercntrl.com and hosts their own site any longer. They don't even know that is possible!

But The-Ixian is right: You can't stop someone from using your online image anyway, even if you self-host it. But at least it would be illegal for them to do so. Maybe. Possibly.

That's the thing, there are a bunch of legitimate improvements to Windows 11. They're just all very obscure, hard to explain things hidden away in the kernel that most users will either never encounter or never even notice.

The things they will notice are the far worse task bar, the randomly missing features that were removed for no apparent reason, the higher hardware requirements, the constant nagging to use new Windows features, the existing features that have been randomly changed for no readily apparent reason, and the new features that are too buggy to use, like HDR support or dynamic refresh rates.

Every web site needs your phone number, every online order... Businesses don't take cash any more. Every web site tracks you and sells data to the brokers. Only Linux installs without an email address and phone number for 2FA and password recovery. Video games, every chat app (maybe not mumble?), every birdhouse camera, even the freaking doorbells want an account! Eye glasses are doing face recognition!

This fight was lost decades ago, and now we have to live with it.