This is wrong. Phonics works really well. We have actual data. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3516004 Nor is phonics a new thing; it was how we taught using phonics in most of the 19th century and early 20th century. Other methods such as three cues are actively bad and teach children how to read using the methods poor readers use to read. See https://www.apmreports.org/episode/2019/08/22/whats-wrong-how-schools-teach-reading for an excellent article on this.

No, they get a 1 year ban, but after that they are permanently barred from submitting anything unless it has been already published in a journal. This reduces by about 90% the utility of the arxiv, and will make them genuinely have trouble getting other people to collaborate when they find out how they are arxiv-restricted.

I've been driving EVs since I first got a used Tesla S (2014 P85D). I have a 2020 Chevy Bolt EV I use as my daily driver right now. I recently rented a 2025 Toyota Camry Hybrid, which seems to be in high demand and very highly rated/recommended out there.

My experience was ... disappointing. Now granted, it delivered on the fuel economy part. I drove it several hundred miles over a few days' time and when I went to refuel it before the rental return, it only needed 6 gallons of gas to fill it back up. But the whole driving experience felt like a big step back from any EV I'd driven. You had the constant sensation of a gas engine turning on and off at various times, and a constant reminder the battery pack in the vehicle was tiny and only a part of a more complicated system. (You could put the car in "EV mode" to make it drive only on battery, but it would only allow it at very low speeds, like driving around parking lots.) Ultimately, it was just a car lugging around all the things required for an internal combustion engine AND electric vehicle parts at the same time. Double the complexity and a rolling compromise. (Better interior than I'm used to seeing w/Toyota though.)

I'm kind of confused w/Honda. Their "EV strategy" seemed to me like it was basically about trying to sell that Prologue which was really a GM designed car getting rebranded as a Honda product + hand-waving that they'd do cooler stuff soon.

Truthfully? I think one of the big challenges with EVs across the board is trying to mask the high cost of the battery pack, motors and other electronics involved. You can "do it right" by not caring and slapping a high price tag on it. Then you get an EV that still maintains people's expectations for "fit and finish", a nice interior, and really good handling. The BMW i4 eDrive 40 is a great example here, or even the Porsche Taycan EV. But most people just want a cheap car that's reliable, avoids the need for gas fill-ups and oil changes, while still handling well and feeling like corners weren't cut on the build quality, interior and exterior. That doesn't really seem to be doable, yet? Tesla sure doesn't. They just design vehicles that few people think look great on the outside. but "wow" them with all the infotainment / computer capabilities on the inside. Keep the interior really bare-bones but put that big touch-screen front and center to distract them. Spend enough on the seats so they're really comfortable, but use a real basic "skateboard" suspension and frame across the whole product line. It goes fast enough in a straight line so they'll ignore other handling issues.

Don't get me wrong. I like Tesla vehicles. I'm just being real about what one is and isn't. I don't think an established brand like Honda is comfortable making all those compromises, and they're just not seeing a profit margin in converting what they build now into a full EV?

Also, a nuclear plant gives local employment. A data center has very few workers once built.

Amazon I.T. .... your ridiculous middle management and their obsession over metrics make stories like these pathetic, yet not unexpected at all.

I.T. is going down a spiral where management treats you like a "digital janitor". I'm old enough to remember this being a fairly respected career path. People in most offices had a combination of fear and awe of the "I.T. guys" because ultimately, there was a realization the entire business relied on the technology to survive. If the server or network went down, everything ground to a halt. You simply didn't treat the team poorly who held the keys to the kingdom.

It's a very different atmosphere today. Now, everyone's worried about how to cut costs and achieve the maximum return. I.T. may be critically important to a business's success, but nobody cares. There's the constant suggestion that AI is about to replace half of them anyway, and the trick is to wring every bit of productivity out of the existing staff until they quit. Then you just replace them and repeat.

If you're reading this and thinking, "It's not like that at all where I work!", congratulations! You're part of a diminishing bit of sanity out there. The last place I worked like that, though? The owner passed away and the company was sold, and it's no longer an exception to the rule.

The idea someone needs to micro manage their "knowledge workers" to the extent they keep tabs on how many feet their mouse has rolled each day? Well, that's plain insulting they'd even think it's sensible!

They never really talk about any of them except for the educational discount, to my knowledge? But for as long as I can remember, Apple also offered military discounts:

https://www.apple.com/shop/bro...

They also run government employee discounts, typically by way of special online stores you have to shop in. For example, Washington DC government workers can go here: https://dchr.dc.gov/page/apple...

I'd agree, except it really depends what you want to do in life. Where AI really does more damage than good is in the Fine Arts. So far, AI has "empowered" the stealing of original creative work by cartoonists, painters and paid photographers, to regurgitate it into "mash-ups" it pretends it came up with organically in response to requests to "draw me a ". It's, similarly, encouraged producing musical jingles and pieces that devalue real, human musicians as part of the process. (If you're a small business looking for a catchy jingle or theme to put in all your radio commercials today? Chances are you opt to save a little money by AI generating something up via a service like Suno, instead of hiring a professional musicians who writes them. That results in AI "synth singers" that all start to sound alike as you hear enough of the content, and to at least some extent? Music that sounds generic and canned, too, due to a limited number of drum riffs and fills, guitar licks and other details the AI uses repeatedly when instructed to play in specific genres.

Even if you believe this is just part of the transition of AI into something far better than it is today? You're just cheering on a world where it will become a special treat to pay premiums for a "real, human-crafted work", while the masses only consume AI art. That doesn't bode well for society in the future, if you ask me.

I mean, most everyone's mad at Trump over implementing these tariffs (and rightfully so, IMO, if only because of how haphazardly it was implemented). But now, you've got companies demanding a refund when it was mostly the consumer who really paid them. (I didn't see many places eating the cost of the tariffs and holding prices where they were? If that had happened, the typical consumer wouldn't have cared so much about them.)

Knowing these companies have no plans to cut prices, it makes it sort of accurate for Trump to praise the ones who won't try to claw back the money. At least as additional revenue to the U.S. government, it technically goes towards servicing the national debt as opposed to tax increases.

Agree with you completely. To me, the real conversation here is probably about whether or not AI has gotten far enough to do a viable simulation of consciousness.
I would be a little disturbed if Dawkins concluded Claude AI is truly "alive" from a few days of interacting with it ... but not sure that's what he's said?

At what point could an AI be treated like a "friend" despite it just being computer software? And by treating an AI as conscious, perhaps it's only a suggestion that interactions with it stay parallel with the ones we'd have with humans. (If nothing else, an AI that adapts and learns partially based on what's typed to it in conversations would suffer from "garbage in, garbage out" if people kept telling it ridiculous things they'd never say to other people.)

We use Notepad++ in my workplace. (At least, some of our software devs do. I maintain it as one of the apps they can install via "Company Portal" in Windows from InTune.)

I had no issues with the software, but I agree it seems pretty similar to other options out there like BBEdit. When I saw the news of a Mac version, I thought, "That's good... more choices for people. I'd never use it, but ..." And now, all this drama because it was released by someone other than the original author.

It sounds like it'll get sorted out, even if Andrey Letov is only grudgingly renaming the app. Honestly? Best answer here would have been Don Ho doing a Mac port of Notepad++ himself. I mean, why not? It can't be that huge a project, considering it's not an app using 3D accelerated graphics or any of that. Just make an official Mac version and expand your user base.

The goblins snuck in and duplicated it.

These systems are genuinely useful and can sometimes do very impressive things. But absolutely everything that comes out of them needs to be checked. I'm not sure how people don't get this at this point. It is also particularly a big deal for something like this being produced by a major government, since they can presumably afford access to pay for the higher quality models which have lower hallucination rates (Claude in particular is better for this.). This still shouldn't stop the humans from looking over everything, as noted by the minister in TFS, but everyone should already know this by now. How many more incidents of this sort do we need?

No. But you many of these benchmarks existed even a year before the reasoning methods were introduced and are benchmarks created by people who have no connection to the AI companies. At that point, to discount this evidence, you need to claim that the AI companies all worked together in a big conspiracy with external academics and others to make benchmarks which would in the long-run show improvement in model learning across the board. Do you see why someone would see that as a conspiracy theory being insisted upon because one wants to just dismiss the evidence?

I'm not trying to convince you that "Because Tao said this, you must be wrong,"- I agree that Fields Medalists can make mistakes or miss things. Heck, I corrected Tao once on something (albeit very minor) and I'm namechecked in a paper for making an essentially trivial observation in a conversation right after Timothy Gowers asked a question. But if you disagree with people this strongly, it should as note occur to you are possibly wrong here. Are you able to spend 5 or 10 minutes considering that at least as a possibility?