Sorry, point of order.

They (neo-nazis, or whatever you wanna call them, jeebus) tried to overturn an election by invading a government building with intent to take election officials hostages. They shot first responders and protesters in cold blood. They literally leave people to die in the cold, which is totally not the same as lighting ovens, but way more cost effective, yaknow?

And what these nazi-like critters did is mass pardon themselves, hire and militarize themselves and start arbitrarily rounding up anyone who doesn't visibly pass as white.

Have you seen the conditions in the concentration camps? No, you say? Y'all promised my mother's people "Never Again" at the Nuremberg trials, and we will survive, and we will remember, and we will never stop reminding y'all that this shit isn't okay, and will never be okay. When they come for me, I will be surrounded by the people I stood up for, acted as a shield for, and shared bread with.



But nazi apologists will be taken alone, because they did not listen when we raised the warning that they were coming for our neighbors.

Which side of history do you wanna be on, eh?

To prove to me that CO2 is not directly harmful to humans, I'm gonna need you to put your head in an airtight plastic bag and seal it against any outside air intrusion that might invalidate this scientific proof.

Go on, I'll wait. About six and a half minutes with your head inside the bag should prove my point, but I'd encourage you to do an overnight test, just so we know for sure that CO2 is entirely safe and could never ever in any way be harmful to humans.

No? Okay, so now that we're done being silly about the very real risk of CO2 directly harming humans (in the long run), are you ready to discuss how some of the currently active CO2 increasing behaviors of various industries might fall under the premise of an act that regulates the save levels of a given harmful air pollutant?

Granted, I'm not a lawyer, but from a logical standpoint your underlying premise (CO2 not harmful, therefore not governed by CAA) seems to be based on a fundamental misunderstanding of exactly how deadly carbon dioxide actually is when excessively ingested by the human body. Because once we've established that as a fundamental fact, let's talk about how industrial CO2 externalities are indirectly-killing-humans in the short run, because that looks like something the CAA also regulates.

And lastly, regarding "scope of the law", I would remind you that what is right and what is legal have diverged wildly in these times of baby-eating billionaire clubs who actively wield corporate-funded lobbyists that maintain a stranglehold on literally the entire sanctioned government structure of multiple nations. Ask yourself, should we be good stewards of the planet for tomorrow's children, or are we going to be baby-eating billionaire apologists?

See, but that's the thing. To them, it absolutely IS a competition.

A competition they'll approve any price paid by someone else to win at, because winning is what matters to them more than anything else, and they don't understand why you don't get that, because they lack the theory of mind to comprehend people who live outside their all-encompassing competition mindset.

Thanks for this, Spicy Autocomplete is my new favourite words.

Apparently, LLMs are bad at rigorous maths, and when a reporter delegates their thinking to an approximation machine without fact-checking the output, you get things like a 27-ish inch conversion error.

I say we boost it to one of the Lagrange points and use it as the foundation & test project for a rotating extraorbital manufacturing platform.

Make the new construction big enough that the central, stationary hub (spacedock?) is big enough to enclose Hubble, so we can retrofit it as an initial exercise in high-precision manufacturing.
We'll probably never do this, because the humans at the levers of power would rather instigate militarized fights and harm children than work together for the good of the people and environment, but it was a pretty dream so I thought I'd share it.

Codeberg is nice. So is sourcehut. And Laminar is an excellent build system that pairs well with either.

Came here to say this, you reap what you sow eh?

Probably not, try not to think about it too hard, and don't look up.

I'm not generally one to quote a president, but it sounds like they're about to "...slip the surly bonds of earth to touch the face of God."

Coming this February: Challenger II Electric Boogaloo

> It could mean the sustainably addressable market is only 5% of the current snake oil hype market.

Yeah, this is true for most if not all hype cycles.

In this case there's an international race towards weaponizing the hype before the competition,
so it's anyone's guess how long the industry stays on nationally-funded life support.

If you want to be fast, and don't mind using the command line, Claude Code is your go-to, but you'll pay through the nose.
If you want it to be free (for now) and want a web interface, go mess around with Vibes.diy, but your apps will only work on their platform unless you do a lotta work to selfhost.
If you don't mind slow, set up something like Ollama and Aider, or Browser-Use, but unless you have a decent GPU the slow here is VERY slow with anything above a small or medium model.

Regardless of the method, LLM-assisted bugs are pervasive and perversely subtle, and thinking through what you want to do and defining it in text for an LLM that barely clears the threshold of "clueless intern" becomes an exercise in frustration as your goal seems close, but never quite close enough to actually achieve without manually re-writing it yourself.
Good luck.

Except because LLMs are technically capable of doing stuff sometimes, marketing would keep hyping the stuff it can sometimes do.

And really to be accurate, the warning label would have to say something like "Unless you're a domain expert who will recognize subtle flaws in reasoning and implementation around this domain, DO NOT ATTEMPT TO USE" and everyone would go "I'm an expert, their marketing people told me so, and I can use this on prod wheeeeeee!" so we're in the same place we are now, with ignorant people using these tools in dangerous ways, and experienced people going "eehhhhhh that's not gonna work quite like you think it is, let's isolate concerns" and being ignored or lambasted for their caution.

A 1st Gen iPod is maybe two decades old, which is about a third of the timeframe being discussed.
Dyson was only founded in 1991, which is 20-31 years after the timeframe being discussed.
Was your math done by LLM, perhaps?

Joking aside...
the engineering for a pocket-sized media player
is an entirely different set of considerations and constraints
than for a piece of yard equipment that spins cutting blades.

Clearly, you speak from a place of obscenely specific competency and luck, if you can maintain not just one but two email servers with "minimal effort".

Unfortunately for your example, you are very much the exception, since you are a domain-specific expert who knows off the top of their head, and has the free time to set up and maintain this sort of thing.

Obviously, most people are not like you, and becoming like you is something people hesitate to attempt.