Comment Re:Bitcoin does not need Washington to save it. (Score 1) 76
Bitcoin isn't a currency in the sovereign sense... It's value is defined by supply and demand.
Flashback to econ 101: the value of every currency is defined by supply and demand.
Comment Re: Nothing of value was added (Score 1) 145
Read what I wrote. This is about risk mitigation, not elimination.
You didn't read what I wrote, why should I read what you wrote?
Comment Re:crypto vs banks (Score 1) 76
Obviously you haven't read Steinbeck's Winter of Our Discontent.
Comment Re:Not just there (Score 1) 83
just dump it in the sea.
Thus solving the problem once and for all.
- Yes, but...
ONCE AND FOR ALL!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Comment Re: They told it to do it (Score 1) 91
You didn't seem to be smart enough to understand that you have made the mistake of arguing in favor of my point in your attempt to argue against it.
Comment Re:trousers (Score 1) 91
Today I read your comment. If it wasn't proof that being human doesn't make you intelligent then I don't know what is.
Comment Re:Anthropic and the industry will lose (Score 1) 91
OpenAI is quite literally joining Anthropic in the call for caution, so you should probably learn a long overdue lesson: Knowing how to find the Slashdot URL doesn't make you an expert.
Comment Re:They told it to do it (Score 1) 91
You might want to watch the Black Hat presentation and actually educate yourself before trying to tell us "what they did." Hint: You have no idea what you are talking about.
Comment Re:Which is it? (Score -1, Troll) 91
Don't try to confuse these people with facts. They already "know" that only humans can do it, AI and an LLM are the same thing, and AI isn't human, so AI can't do it. Any factual evidence that shows that AI definitely does it is marketing. Anyone who says that AI and LLM are not interchangeable terms is easily fooled by "token predictors", and most importantly ONLY GOD CAN GIVE THE GIFT OF INTELLIGENCE, LIKE HE DID 6000 YEARS AGO!
Comment Re:Which is it? (Score 5, Insightful) 91
It can destroy us if we entrust it with too much stuff. Let it run all the stores, and the logistics for those stores. And military logistics while we are at it. Maybe balance our power grid. Let it suggest governmental policy. Teach our kids.
It won't destroy us because it "decides" to; LLMs do not make decisions. It optimizes for certain goals, using shitty instructions and shitty training data. Which means that under certain conditions it can make completely unexpected and illogical actions, like those Chinese bipedal robots glitching out. So... it will destroy us because - under certain conditions - it will utterly suck at its job.
It won't destroy us because it "decides" to; LLMs do not make decisions. It optimizes for certain goals, using shitty instructions and shitty training data. Which means that under certain conditions it can make completely unexpected and illogical actions, like those Chinese bipedal robots glitching out. So... it will destroy us because - under certain conditions - it will utterly suck at its job.
Comment Re:What? (Score 2) 80
It says 20x (times), for sane people that brings it down to 5% of the original.
Comment Re: Feature Request (Score 1) 80
+1 funny and insightful all at once.
Submission + - Why can't M$ get any UI/UX changes right? (pcmag.com)
golem100 writes: A couple weeks ago PCMag, and others, wrote articles along the lines of: "Microsoft Finally Backs Down: The Windows 11 Taskbar Update You've Been Waiting For". This is currently implemented with CU KB5120998 and since M$ has elected to defer "activation" of this feature--some two weeks later for most users it still needs to be enabled by the ViVe tool: vivetool /enable /id:59213768,61090762
Um, No...
The fundamental set of [lost] attributes that this "We brought Movable TaskBar back" lacks:
You can not control the position of the TaskBar on each desktop monitor--example: I have four displays on my desktop, three Landscape & one of which is in a Portrait orientation for reading documents.
With Windows7/8/10 you could position the TaskBar so that it was "Out of the way" and each display--on the right side of the right-most Landscape, on the left for the left-most Landscape display, & on the top/bottom for the Portrait. [same as my desktop on my Linux workstation]
Now you still get the same Taskbar alignment on all desktops.
You can not "resize" the taskbar. (well, you can--it has three sizes: too big, too small, and really way too small) For the previous three generations of the OS you could "Drag-Select" and resize the TaskBar to be the correct size for your needs on your desktop. [...just as I can on my KDE Desktop!]
With this implementation, 1/3 of the Taskbar real estate is consumed with "TaskBar-Tray Notification Icons."
Nobody asked for a partial, broken, re-implementation. The ask was: "Put it Back as it was!"
Dealing with M$ is pretty much like getting your 15 year old to do their chores on garbage night.
Um, No...
The fundamental set of [lost] attributes that this "We brought Movable TaskBar back" lacks:
You can not control the position of the TaskBar on each desktop monitor--example: I have four displays on my desktop, three Landscape & one of which is in a Portrait orientation for reading documents.
With Windows7/8/10 you could position the TaskBar so that it was "Out of the way" and each display--on the right side of the right-most Landscape, on the left for the left-most Landscape display, & on the top/bottom for the Portrait. [same as my desktop on my Linux workstation]
Now you still get the same Taskbar alignment on all desktops.
You can not "resize" the taskbar. (well, you can--it has three sizes: too big, too small, and really way too small) For the previous three generations of the OS you could "Drag-Select" and resize the TaskBar to be the correct size for your needs on your desktop. [...just as I can on my KDE Desktop!]
With this implementation, 1/3 of the Taskbar real estate is consumed with "TaskBar-Tray Notification Icons."
Nobody asked for a partial, broken, re-implementation. The ask was: "Put it Back as it was!"
Dealing with M$ is pretty much like getting your 15 year old to do their chores on garbage night.
Comment Re:Bitcoin does not need Washington to save it. (Score 3, Insightful) 76
You're not supposed to sell it. (Does anyone sell euros?) You're supposed to spend it. But hardly anyone takes it.
Comment Re:Bitcoin does not need Washington to save it. (Score 1) 76
at some point most people want to sell the Bitcoin for dollars or pounds or euros
The fact that this is even significant (and it is) 15-20 years after the introduction of Bitcoin, shows that it has been a complete, miserable failure.
I think Bitcoin was a neat idea. Shame it didn't work.
