Even though I've pretty consistently used Samsung phones for like 15 years now, I always switched the default messaging app to Google's. Phone companies don't need to reinvent the wheel.

Its a pitch about "what if" - not something they've figured out how to do.

Such press releases basically ARE just science fiction that they're hoping to get an investor for to MAYBE turn into fact (or not - they'll be rich when/if it fails anyways).

That's not the reason. Time slows down (from the perspective of a far away observer) as objects approach the event horizon. It doesn't matter if the black hole is small or big...it slows down by the same amount, the only question is where. The event horizon has a larger radius when it's big, and it has a smaller radius when it's small.

In both cases, from the perspective of a far away observer NOTHING ever crosses the event horizon, whether the black hole is small or big. It slows down as it approaches that point, and at the event horizon itself, time stops completely, so it will freeze there for eternity. You won't be able to see that, instead you see the light that it emits being redshifted as it has to climb the black hole's gravity well, eventually becoming too red-shifted to be detected, and it's effectively black.

In both cases, from the perspective of the object falling in, time is passing, and it crosses the event horizon without even knowing that it's there. Well, for a very large black hole, it doesn't notice anything, for a very small black hole, tidal effects cause spaghettification before crossing the event horizon, so it's going to notice something and have a bad time. But it won't be the event horizon, it's just the difference in the force of gravity across the length of the object.

So, the reason it slows down consumption is not related to the time dilation. Using your terms, "it's almost" as physicists spend their lives studying these things, and therefore if it seems obvious to the the layman reading a slashdot article, they've already considered it and either accepted, dismissed it, or tested it.

Realistically, the home experience has just gotten too good these days to bother going to the theater. I'm 44 - when I was a kid a 25" TV screen was huge. When I was in college I took some extra financial aid refund money and bought a 32" CRT television for our room and everyone felt like that TV was comically large. Our dorm room was the place everyone came to watch TV because we had "the big TV".

Now 32" is tiny, and adjusted for inflation I can get an 85" TV for almost half of what I paid for that TV. For $150-200 you can add in a soundbar with a decent subwoofer and have damned good home audio. The TV's are also laid out in a better aspect ratio compared to film so letterboxing isn't as extreme, and the resolution is through the roof compared to old NTSC.

Realistically while at home viewing used to be a pale imitation of the quality you got at a theater, these days the home experience is on par, and you don't have to worry about other people talking or ruining the movie. A bag of popcorn at home is $0.45.

Its just a better experience at home.

I think we really need some type of granular filter.

An AI thumbnail or a few seconds of AI generated content I don't care about in a video, as long as the video is MOSTLY a real manual production.

The videos where the animations, voiceover, and even the script is all clearly AI though, those are the ones where I want to skip it entirely.

Like if this video is more than 30% AI, then I would prefer it be culled from my feed.

It is crazy just HOW wrong and weird these "hallucinations" can be. Just last night I was asking Gemini about TV shows to watch and it literally made up a TV show that didn't exist as a recommendation.

That is an accidental attitude. I don't even understand what you're trying to imply here.

The default assumption, by literally everyone, is that if it's in an ad, it's not a statement to be trusted. Ads are *by nature* untrustworthy, they are a biased view meant to get you to be interested in the product. It's up to the person with the wallet to then do actual research, and they are literally the only person to blame if they trust the ad. If the ads were telling you the limitation of the product, then the person to blame would be the marketing team that created the ad, they should be fired for incompentence.

If the government is depending on ads to evaluate the capabilities of the AI, that's where you should focus the outrage. If the ads were in any way saying that Claude isn't capable of doing anything including making you breakfast and turning you into a stud that all women want, then your outrage should be with the terrible marketing team that decided that their competition deserves market share.

Ok. The founding fathers didn't want the President of the United States to have ANY POWERS to make any decisions inside the country. The goal was for the President to merely be the administrative head to enforce laws Congress pass, and its only check on Congress was the veto power. The President also served as a Commander in Chief and had the power to sign treaties with foreign governments, but those powers were meant to be EXTREMELY limited, as they gave only Congress the power to declare war, and Congress was required to ratify any treaties with foreign governments.

If the President has the power to make ANY DECISIONS WHATSOEVER, instead of enforcing decisions those in congress have made, then it's not the role the founding fathers wanted.

They also wanted the executive to be very neutral. Many of them were against the concept of political parties, but that turned out to be inevitable. However, up until the 12th amendment, the vice-president was the runner up, whoever got the second-most votes by the electoral college. So, under that system, Hillary would have been Trump's VP his first term, and Harris would have been Trump's VP his second term. Because they wanted to ensure a check even within the executive, with someone with different views being the one to break ties in the senate.

Kind of a silly thing for her to say. How many non-Klingons do you see in the Klingon empire vs non-humans in the Federation?

The military is right. As in, the military is saying Anthropic's tools are the best there are, and they don't want to change. Pete Hegseth is wrong, and he's throwing a hissy fit that, as usual, goes against what the people who now have to follow his orders, but are way more qualified than he is, actually want to do.

Incorrect. It's important that the decision be the *best decision*. Speed is a factor, but it's not the most important one. I can give you a system that gives you decisions faster than any AI, just have it choose randomly instead of actually analyzing any data, and it will be very fast!

What Anthropic is concerned about is that they are not confident their AI system can make decisions like what to shoot at with a low enough error rate to justify doing so. Anthropic is understandably concerned about the blowback to *them* when they become the scapegoat for all our drones engaging in friendly fire and killing a bunch of Americans, because Hegseth decided to trust a system that if you ask it, "the carwash is only 100m from my house, should I drive or walk there to wash my car" will say that you should walk there, because it's so close. You really want *that* system making the decision on who to kill?

I'm a pragmatist. I *know* eventually humans will be out of the loop in such decisions. We're very, very, VERY far from that. We know it, the military knows it, ALL the AI vendors, out of which Anthropic currently has the best product, know this. Pete Hegseth is apparently too incompetent to know this.

The second part of the equation, AI is actually pretty good at. It's a great tool for sifting through massive data, so it's great in helping to spy against Americans. No patriot should want that, however. Anthropic is ok with it being used to spy on other countries, but understandably does not want that use to spy on our own citizens. If you're against that, fuck you, you have no right to call yourself an American, you don't have the very basic values that this country stands for.

Ironically - they'd likely end up picking the worst artists in the country, as artists with skills who are more valuable are less in need of the program in the first place.

I get that the lack of a social safety net can be an issue. It leads people to either take or stay in jobs that they hate where conditions may be bad or unfair, because if you become unemployed most people aren't too many paychecks away from homelessness.

Still, I'd rather see something akin to an unemployement option where everyone gets up to 5 years of UBI throughout their lives. You can never touch it if you don't need it or you can take it for a few months in between jobs if need be, so long as you don't exceed your allocated amount. You can't stay on it indefinitely - you have to work - but a brief lapse in employment isn't likely to completely destroy your life.

Indeed. However that is what determines if you are successful or not. If you are an artist producing output that people WILL pay for - then that's a "real job". If you're an artist producing output that nobody is willing to pay for - then you're just wasting time.

Focusing activity where it is needed is part of the job market. If you go into your back yard with a shovel and just start digging a deep hole people will rightly think you're wasting time. If you instead take the same shovel and effort and dig where someone else specifically needs a whole dug, then you're producing valuable output.

On a societal structure, virtually all output is valued by what its worth to others. Since we are incapable of surviving alone in modern times (very few people are subsistence farmers or hunter/gatherers), you have to have some type of valuable skill that you are willing to trade to others for some portion of what you need to survive.

On the contrary, they absolutely do. Policing is a job with output. Criminals are caught, rules are enforced. This is output that can be measured. Output isn't directly died to producing manufactured goods. Output can be a service that people are willing to pay to have done.

In much the same vein, cleaning staff and maids aren't manufacturing anything, but they still produce output that people will pay for.

I am assuming Kosh (though they are ALL Kosh ;)). Sheridan confronts Kosh to intervene against the Shadows and at first Kosh refuses until Sheridan eventually goads him into helping.

As Kosh is being killed by the Shadows in retaliation, he comes to John in a dream (appearing as John's father) and explains that he was reluctant largely because he was afraid. He knew that helping John in that instance was effectively a death sentence - and he wouldn't be around to help John later when he'd need it. EG "I will not be with you, when you go to Zha'hadum").

The option itself was what set people off.

Even if there is an offer to heated seats to be a purchase, having the OPTION to pay monthly made a truth obvious to the public that anyone can understand: You can't download seat heating. That's hardware that's either there or its not, and if you're charging monthly for it then its already part of the car that I've paid for and this car is already perfectly capable of performing the function - you just want more money to enable it.

People would have been pissed to find out that the heating hardware was there and just "turned on" even if it was a purchase option rather than a subscription, but most people would never think about it or notice. The subscription option though made that fact very, very obvious.