So what? That's a private matter between the employee and the company. If the company is a startup and doesn't have the money to enforce the provisions, tough for them. Beggars can't be choosers, and all that. Nothing for any government to get involved in. At best some ambulance chasing lawyers who work for "free". And the startup will soon discover that's a great way to spend some money it didn't have in the first place.

Trouble is, today's vibe coders have no idea what you've just said. If it can't be done by the LLM automatically for them without preprocessing, then it can't be done.

It's the vibe of the thing, really...

The amount of effort you're going through is frankly ridiculous. Go to a store and buy an old recipe book. No ads. No scrolling. Just the instructions, m'am.

Those journal subscriptions are just too expensive, though.

Thanks Bruce

...that Avi Loeb is going to claim it's aliens?

The crowd looks weird. Kind of like foliage.

It's kind of true though. Trump is a big whiner. It's rather tiring.

I can recommend trying out a sensory deprivation tank experience, if you have one near where you live. Dark, undisturbed, floating, just you and your thoughts. It's a pretty nice micro getaway when things get too hectic.

See also: ocean bottom trawling

There needs to be a law about whether AI is allowed to learn from content on the same terms as a living individual, or not.

No. There needs to be a law about whether AI companies can suck up content without paying for it, for commercial purposes. The word "learning" is mathematically meaningless.

This is a good thing. The internet is nowhere near a net benefit to humanity as we all thought 30 years ago. At this point it's turned out to be a slight negative.

Anything that cuts down on excessive usage globally is worth a small amount of pain. Think of it like going to the gym. It's not gonna kill you to go outside and enjoy the fresh air.

We're talking about the fact that the Earth is Trapping Much More Heat Than Climate Models Forecast.

The underestimated predictions from popular climate models have been known for a couple of years now. I personally remember discussions of it from at least last year. Nothing effective has been done about it, nor will it anytime soon, because meaningful action requires political and lobbying action that translates into reduced industrial activity, and that is incompatible with shareholder value.

The top 1% emit about 15 times the global average for a person. If you got rid of them all you'd still be left with 85% of the problem.

That doesn't match the back of the envelope calculation. Getting rid of major shareholders (not that that's likely, but hypothetically) in capital intensive industries would cause those industries to collapse in the short term. As a result you get demand destruction (a euphemism if there ever was one), and that's what gets rid of a large part of the remaining 85% effects from that industry.

Think of it like this: If I manufacture chocolate chip cookies for the whole population, and my factory shuts down, then nobody gets to eat my chocolate chip cookies. Eventually, people will search for substitutes, but that's another story.

So that's the calculation that shows where the theoretical pressure point exists in society. It's where the capital is concentrated in a small number of hands.

We were talking about private jets. Woosh.

It is in the nature of tech bros to hype up their tiny contributions and ask for billions in funding. No need to get upset about it. It seems to be the new American way.