Honestly outside of people who do heavy 3d rendering, even a computer you use for your job just doesn't need to be that powerful.

As a programmer who sits at a screen for 8 hours a day, it took a lot of convincing for me to even give up my 10 year old workstation because it was pretty decent when it was purchased and as long as it had decent ram (it had 32GB) I was perfectly fine working on it. Having to reinstall was more of a headache that the benefit of getting a new system.

Hell my home/play machine is SIGNIFICANTLY more powerful than my work one.

I view my home computer like a Corvette and my work machine like a Corolla. At home I want fast - at work I just want dependable.

That sounds great. However, anything that causes anatomical brain chages that persist after a month, with a single dose, would be, by me, considered unacceptably risky. I'm not saying that it's by default considered bad, both you and the paper are talking about positive changes, and that's good. I'm saying, "risky," as in, I don't know what negative effects haven't been identified and I'd need a much more complete understanding before I'd be willing to try it.

Most of the positive effects are in reported well-being, but I really want to see more cognitive tests. The tests on cognitive flexibility is a great start, but we really need a barrage of tests here: mathematical ability? Short-term *and* long-term memory? Spatial thinking? Are there *any* cognitive functions that are negatively affected here? It's important to understand this with anything that has this type of long-lasting effect.

Given the Apple/Mac history with NeXT, I think the name he chose is more fitting.

When I got my first computer it was a Commodore, and I had a ton of those magazines. Eventually my disk drive broke, so if I wanted to play one of those little games or things they had, I literally had to type the whole program in each time.

I would leave the computer powered on as long as possible so that the RAM didn't clear :).

Modern pipes are often plastic, but a lot of technology is different in modern times as well. Lots of stuff done with mechanical relays and such are done with solid state stuff now.

Heck CRT screens even when "black" you could still tell when they were on - not because of some light, but because they had an almost imperceptible "hum" you could hear and they air around them felt more charged with static electricity.

Tech from different eras just sometimes feels and sound different.

Why would anyone pay for a web browser? Seriously, why? In 35 years of web browsers, only dopes paid for them.

ahh these young kids donâ(TM)t remember Digitial Electronic Corporation, makers of legendary DEC Alpha CPU.

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.