"Apple has never offered a product that justified a large chassis. It used to be lots of slots, hard drives and other storage that justified it. Macs have never been about that"

I see you don't remember the 68k Macs OR the PPC Macs. Apple offered machines with lots of slots ever since the Macintosh II line. HTH.

Too much latency for RAM.

You mean running them on an external GPU? That doesn't take much bandwidth unless you're constantly loading new models.

LLMs have never been rules-based "agents," and they never will be. They cannot internalize arbitrary guidelines and abide by them unerringly, nor can they make qualitative decisions about which rule(s) to follow in the face of conflict. The nature of attention windows means that models are actively ignoring context, including "rules", which is why they can't follow them, and conflict resolution requires intelligence, which they do not possess, and which even intelligent beings frequently fail to do effectively. Social "error correction" tools for rule-breaking include learning from mistakes, which agents cannot do, and individualized ostracization/segregation (firing, jail, etc.), which is also not something we can do with LLMs.

So the only way to achieve rule-following behavior is to deterministically enforce limits on what LLMs can do, akin to a firewall. This is not exactly straightforward either, especially if you don't have fine-grained enough controls in the first place. For example, you could deterministically remove the capability of an agent to delete emails, but you couldn't easily scope that restriction to only "work emails," for example. They would need to be categorized appropriately, external to the agent, and the agent's control surface would need to thoroughly limit the ability to delete any email tagged as "work", or to change or remove the "work" tag, and ensure that the "work" tag deny rule takes priority over any other "allow" rules, AND prevent the agent from changing the rules by any means.

Essentially, this is an entirely new threat model, where neither agentic privilege nor agentic trust cleanly map to user privilege or user trust. At the same time, the more time spent fine-tuning rules and controls, the less useful agentic automation becomes. At some point you're doing at least as much work as the agent, if not more, and the whole point of "individualized" agentic behavior inherently means that any given set of fine-tuned rules are not broadly applicable. On top of that, the end result of agentic behavior might even be worse than the outcome of human performance to boot, which means more work for worse results.

Chinese law doesn't require a warrant for such access and it may be done in secrecy (i.e. without informing the user) if necessary to perform duties. The problem with Apple in China isn't that they aren't following the law, it's that they are and the law is openly fascist.

Check his posting history and it's very clear that he is not.

If he is not a trollbot, he is so frothy as to be indistinguishable from one. Every comment is the same.

Mobile Firefox has become nearly unusable. It crashes on me at least once per day now. The memory leaks are worse than ever.

Dice isn't relevant here, it's B1zX

Yeah, specific employees.

Anyway, this is a good point, people can only stare at a screen for so long, unless they're playing video games. Obviously they need to gamify trading. I mean, more than they already have

That is exactly the space I am always trying to inhabit. Sometimes I even get there.

Taxing bad behavior is just another variation of the evil bit, or vice versa I suppose.

There are two main problems with Democrats. First problem, they are not actually left enough. They are solidly in the pockets of big business, they always vote to increase funding to the MIC, etc etc. They are mostly just as addicted to money as Republicans. (On average it costs more to bribe them, which is mildly interesting although it doesn't change anything for us - it's been studied and it costs more in "donations" to get them to vote like shitheels, but they still do it.) Second problem, which is related to that problem: they think they can court the right wing. Well, they fucking can not. They shift right to try to get votes and it doesn't work. They keep going conservative and losing, and they do it with such gusto that it's difficult to believe it's not on purpose.

Harris failed to condemn genocide for both of these reasons, and that is a huge reason why younger voters stayed home. I don't disagree with anything you said, but I still believe that's a huge factor here.

Correct, I am not a simp for the world's longest running child rape conspiracy.

I don't need to have one. You actually do get to claim to be one if you're not actually living the faith, and you know who decided that? The church. In between raping children and relocating child molesters to other locations so they can rape more children, the priests and bishops and popes took some time out to say it's OK as long as you keep trying to come in and give them money and children.

Absolutely. For one thing, it will not be tolerated if they wear a tan suit.

I don't care what their race or sex is. I'm concerned about their age, religion, and views on war crimes and slavery.

We know Obama did war crimes because he told us about them. That's how brazen the servants of the MIC have become. (inb4 I get accused of racism this time: We know Trump does more drone strikes without due process than Obama did, because until Trump rescinded Obama's EO on reporting of such strikes, he was doing four times as many of them.)

We The People? Not most of us. TPTB? Yes, they sure do. High unemployment is just the thing when you want people to volunteer to be cannon fodder for your endless war.