If only I had mod points!

Really? REALLY?!?

Because the movies I remember watching were complete and utter departures from Tolkien's writing. They were nothing like the book, and were terrible as a result.

Something like this needs density. If there's not enough people using it, then the per use cost will be far too much to make it economically viable. That makes cities much more attractive to startups like this. Of course there you have airspace issues with large buildings, so the true sweet spot may be relatively dense but very high income suburbs. But it sure as heck won't be rural.

And it will help you (illegally) both surveil US citizens, and mass murder citizens of other countries!

I love the smug sense of superiority in these posts. Literally thousands (if not tens or hundreds of thousands) of people are using Claws ... but this poster knows better than all of them! It's just hype, and its only purpose is to hoover up resources.

Never mind that those thousands of people were all intelligent humans, capable of judging for themselves whether they are getting value for their time/money ... nope, every last one is a hopeless sod who doesn't know any better and is getting scammed.

There is a huge amount of wasted power/bandwidth/time in AI, but the technology will improve: the first cars couldn't drive a mile, and now we have electric vehicles that go hundreds.

Also don't forget that humans "waste" resources too. If an AI makes a programmer even 20% more effective the real question isn't "is AI wasteful?" ... it's "who wastes more: six humans, or five humans and their AIs?"

Cars sucked and were horribly inefficient, but they got better, and reduced waste throughout society by enabling new possibilities. AI looks likely to follow a similar trajectory.

It should be, but remember that the Supreme Court gave police officers (essentially) full immunity from prosecution for anything they do on the job.

Thanks Roberts court (the most corrupt in all modern history)!

The AI companies have been acting like Uber (ie. breaking existing laws with the assumption they're "too big to catch").

However, this is as clear of a case of copyright violation as there could be. I hope Britannica wins!

Irrational fear is for muggles and Luddites.

Real programmers aren't afraid of new programming tools.

Trump is in Putin's pocket: everything he does that doesn't make sense for America (ie. most of it) is because it's for Russia's benefits.

There, Trump's actions make sense: no AI required.

I assume this guy got downvoted or the slur against the disabled ... but what he's saying about employers paying for AI is dead on.

If you make say $200k/year, even $500/month ($6k a year) is a relative drop in the bucket (3%). Claude makes me far, far more than 3% more productive.

For years Digg sat unused, then whoever bought it sat on it for months with a screen promising it was coming ... then switched to a screen saying there was (essentially) a closed beta for many months... and in that entire time there was nothing a Digg fan could do.

If the owner had any sense at all, they would have added the simplest thing possible to that page: a wait list signup. Then, when Digg was ready, they'd have a ton of people (early adopters, who were so into it they visited the site before it was ready) jumping to use the new site.

The fact that the new owners couldn't understand the value of something as simple as a wait list just shows how unprepared they are..

On the one hand, Zuck is pure evil, and I hate all things Meta.

On the other hand, their model is one of the best open models, and I want open models to succeed.

Not sure whether to cheer this news or be disappointed.

Does this mean that when NemoClaw goes rogue (as *Claws are famous for doing), I can sue Nvidia?

I'm thinking there isn't a snowball's chance in hell of that happening, but NemoClaw will go rogue. When it does, the negative publicity is going to be huge: whatever Nvidia hopes to gain from this, I can't imagine it will be worth it.

You can stare at the full moon all night if you like, because the albedo of the moon has filtered most of the light including the UV band that naturally passes through our own atmosphere. The three mile circle illuminated by a mirror would bounce a significantly higher amount of UV than the moon's albedo. If you treat the 60ft reflector as an analog to a pinhole in a pinhole camera, the circular area on the Earth surface would be a rough projection of the image of the sun.

(1) I wonder how they calculate the UV exposure for the observer on the surface within the illumination area.

(2) I wonder if you'd be able to detect places in a coherent projection where sunspots or coronal ejections are reflected through the "pinhole" effect of this arrangement.