The trick is the average person can't keep that basic computer secure either.

"Be your own bank" is good but banks have armored cars and vaults and insurance.

If you write down your seed you better keep it in a place where nobody can ever find it.

There's no great solution that will always work. Some people do a dedicated Graphene phone and bury their seed stamped into titanium using a OTP in a forest an hour from home but for others there's a reason hardware wallets have market appeal.

I wish I had these four billion dollar problems. If these devices support multisig you could at least have a few of them.

Well each Matter release is supporting more device classes so hopefully fewer devices will need apps over time.

Apple support of Thread will help it gain momentum. Ikea helped but people want to sell to Apple customers.

I run OTBR nodes alongside ZigBee devices and Thread is much less reliable even though it should be better in every way.

I've stopped buying Thread devices for now even though it will eventually own the market.

The one thing I won't buy is Thread over Wifi devices, i want home stuff on completely different networks.

Now ask why the FBI didn't arrest him on those Epstein charges. Or any other Epstein clients.

Where's Katie Johnson's 302?

Why is DoJ illegally withholding and redacting millions of files?

Don't mistake two enemies fighting for friends.

Oh, and they're actively framing an autistic black man for terrorism.

There's always been suspicion about why Mozilla was so reluctant to support JPEG-XL where code would come and go, it would be implemented and pulled, etc.

Speculation was that while Google was paying Mozilla $300M/yr they were also trying to make webp happen. The AV1 stuff was good but shoehorning it into a static image format wasn't the best.

Same idea as why IPv6 took 30 years to catch on - it didn't offer most people much more with extra work required to not get much benefit.

JPEG-XL did so much more but mysteriously languished.

That Mozilla jumped as soon as Google did is noticeable. They used to be an industry leader but maybe all those people have moved on or been pushed out.

I helped clean up a 2021 laptop yesterday that had 32 gigs of RAM with a half TB of storage.

It was a standard-issue company laptop at the time.

Can you imagine paying more for an 8 gig machine today?

It may be the new normal but people without an urgent need are waiting to see if the bubble pops.

There doesn't seem to be a free market road to profitability without a significant resource breakthrough so maybe they're right.

At least CPM isn't CP/M but I always have to think twice.

Good call adding punctuation to the initialism, though.

Though already CI/CD pipelines were choking on the unit tests. So they aren't *free*.

Had an LLM generated request that was pretty straightforward, and the LLM generated 272 unit tests for a very simple function. Can't really afford that.

Also, despite the 272 unit tests, when I tried to try it out in the way a human would, it immediately failed. All the mocking the AI generated never actually properly imitated the real world. However, the submitter was *quite* proud of having hundreds of unit tests, despite them being, in this scenario, utterly worthless.

Like always, more code != more valuable software behavior.

So you have the AI doing overtly silly things. Someone asked to adjust layout to fix a gap in a webpage. Eventually they submitted their pull request, hundreds and hundreds of lines of CSS. Often the exact same rule repeated 5 times, which I'm guessing is how many rounds the operator went with the system before the gap actually closed. The lines were *mostly* just '!important'ing already existing rules, which had no impact, but hey, worth a shot right? Ultimately I discarded the merge request and made the one-line css tweak that was actually relevant.

Then you have the AI doing... well arguably slightly silly things. Like protecting against an invalid value redundantly throughout a call stack. Arguably defensible, as maybe one day the deep function will be called from somewhere else and passing through the error might not present it with the most informative context.

Finally the AI doing... well things the human should have been doing. With the advent of a lot of code scanning, this is less likely, but things like calling functions in C and charging ahead without ever checking the status of the call. functions that, practically speaking, will likely never fail, however you really *should* be being more defensive about the possibility.

The 'human review as a bottleneck' isn't really the angle I would fixate on. Completely unfettered AI usage also stalls out in many situations. If the AI can't get there on its own trivially, then it's going to leave an almost-correct looking mess that isn't quite there but is very hard to get across the finish line. If the AI can get it, then it's probably not 'software being shipped', because while perhaps slightly better than a generic off-the-shelf existing procedure, probably not worth the trouble to 'ship' a solution that largely overlaps with a lot of generic stuff.

Everyone knows that pretty much by definition volumes are low, that's the whole definition of a shortage.

The vendors may still be happy, perhaps even happier if the sky high prices produce at least as much revenue at high margin.

• artificial intelligence's ability to examine, summarize, and hallucinate large amounts of project documentation across multiple areas of concern,
• how important and trivial decisions are actually made (poorly) by humans, and
• how nuclear reactor funding happens
  • I bet you can assemble something.

I'm with you, but realistically speaking, if the mindset is already there, the material was likely already at high risk of plausible nonsense, not as thought out as the reality, but something to satisfy a check box for someone else. And the hope for process improvement is frequently not there, as raising a "do we really need to do this" invites "you must not care about safety/security/whatever". In many scenarios *no one* wants to be potentially on the hook for approving a process optimization that ends up biting them because they didn't understand why those things were in the process. Even if it is patently obvious to all involved there's no point, or if there was it was already failing. Frequently process dictated by someone that has no *real* stakes in anything involved, but needs to be performative.

The GenAI approach is the way to pay lip service and skip the debate. And if something messes up? "Ooops, well you know how AI just does that sometimes". I've seen that *so many times* and people just laugh it off and keep slopping and no one is holding folks accountable for failing to audit the AI results adequately. So they get credit when the slop works, and they deflect blame when it doesn't.

It *sounds* like they are using it for generating bureaucratic material.

Certainly comparatively speaking the stakes are just so much lower, but I've seen a bit of that in my company.

In my case, it's material that generally no one reads, or maybe someone that doesn't matter. GenAI has become a way for people to tick the checkboxes that they think don't matter without trying to debate the reason for the checkboxes.

Suppose the question is whether or not some token gesture facilitated by the GenAI *actually* matters but it's easier to "AI it away" than actually hash out that detail. Does it facilitate people who "I know what I'm doing, just let me do what I know is right" proceed without adequate and accurate oversight. Or is it the case that these situations were already ineffective at oversight, but effective at having whatever would have happened either way just happen in slow motion.

If that'll all they intended they could have agreed on a very narrowly-tailored agreement limiting the use to the same aspects of the film as manual animation.

Maybe Cage is doing some solidarity thing with animators or maybe Amazon intended to do much more and were attempting an underhanded trick.

It's hard to tell except you'd expect Cage to say something if animators' jobs were his cause.

It sounds like his agent or manager knew what was up.

> you apparently desire to use systems beyond their design points

Who doesn't include cost in design?

If my CPU/SoC is plenty fast for my task and the DRAM is faster than I need it to be and a CPU instruction to compress takes less power than a write out to the bus - it would just be wasteful to manufacture and purchase twice as much DRAM as the application needs.

Either the end user gets a better price (and all money is the result of expending energy, so we save again) or the manufacturer makes a larger profit (in a constrained market).

Now then - all you lunatics embedding Electron and costing me 400MB to send an 80 character text message - we need to talk about this.

CRAM seems like a great idea but it's not the solution to not caring about the Craft.