That's not how LLMs work. While they are trained on existing data, they are also capable of reasoning. They can produce novel solutions to problems.

Just because they don't work the same way as a the human brain doesn't mean that they are not capable of this sort of thing.

Leap hours are just a legal thing to satisfy countries that require UT to be synchronized with the orbit of the Earth around the sun. There won't be one for centuries, i.e. it's so far out that it can be ignored.

Seinfeld went to Israel and visited the IDF camps where they train people to participate in genocide. That's not a joke, that's becoming directly involved in a crime against humanity.

That's the fig leaf that is always used. "It's just a joke! I'm not hurting anyone!" Then they use the platform and money to hurt people. JK Rowling is another example. "It's just a children's book!" (never mind that she also writes shit adults novels under a male name). She funds hate groups and their lawsuits, which has recently resulted in an extremely damaging change in the law in the UK.

Speech does not happen in a vacuum.

Do you have benchmarks for AI performance? That seems more relevant here.

Also which Apple machine are you comparing to? The M5 performance depends heavily on thermal and power limits. That website is probably using the desktop version with much better cooling and a higher power limit than any of Apple's portable offerings.

It doesn't really matter if it makes a useful contribution to the field.

It's hard to say if it is due to AI being something novel, of it they threw similar amounts of money at humans working in the field they could get a similar result. Maybe it doesn't matter, because humans take decades to train to this level, and their built their AI in years.

This. No good game was ever created from a single prompt. Not to an AI, not a human development team. Every single person writing those damn "look which game my AI built from a single prompt and $x in tokens!" postings is a newbie and almost certainly has never actually shipped a single game.

Game development can be summed up as endless iterations. Every system you build, every visual you create, every sound, text, button, movement, weapon, skill, powerup needs polishing, refinement and changes. It is never, never good enough the first time.

No it is not, but it IS a very successful platform for a specific subclass of games. If I were in it for the money, I could probably AI refactor some of my earliest games and publish them on Roblox and make a quick buck. If your thing is the kind of games you played on your C64 back in 1793, then Roblox got you covered. Well, if you ignore the scams and money-grabbing.

*sigh* I wish Unity would actually complete some of their dozens half-finished sub-systems instead of constantly chasing the latest trend. It's become really, really annoying. The engine used to be really good. These days, it falls apart if you look at it the wrong way, and at least from the responses to my bug reports it's clear that fixing issues is way down on the agenda.

Maybe this is their attempt to regain grounds in the indie game market - the very market they pushed away by focussing on AAA requirements for years and ignoring the single devs and small teams. If so, I can already tell them that it won't work. We collectively laugh about all the "look what my AI built for me from a single prompt" postings on reddit, where people proudly show off some AI slop that would get them last place at a game jam.

Their AI efforts so far: Tried to build and sell their own AI tools, to a collective yawn from the audience. Built a barely-working MCP server, then deprecated it before it was even finished in order to push a CLI interface to the editor instead, which only works if it's run as the same user as the editor on the same machine. And completely ignores every single advise on workflows and good development practices you can think of.

Unity, I love your engine, I despise your management. Please return to when you were actually good and stop chasing butterflies.

The need for them came from relativity, but the atomic clocks needed to be able to handle such fine corrections are based on the hyperfine transition of 133Cs. You're not getting very far on atomic clocks without particle physics

Okay Felicia.

Sounds like Newton. Long tradition, I guess

"Okay, nuclear power. Yeah. Yeah, they did give us that. That's true. "

"And industrial-scale superconducting magnets!"

"Don't forget GPS satellite relativistic corrections!"

"And radioisotope therapy!"

"Electron beam therapy?"

"World Wide Web, wasn't that created by particle physicists?"

"Yeah, they did do that."

"Capacitative touchscreens too, you know."

"All right, all right, FAIR ENOUGH! But APART from computers, telecommunications, nuclear power, PET scans, MRIs, satellite communications, superconductors, radioisotope therapy, electron beam therapy, heat-shrink tubing, cargo and baggage screening, smoke detectors, muon tomography, capacitative touchscreens, and the World Wide Web, WHAT HAS PARTICLE PHYSICS EVER DONE FOR US?!"

"Synchrotron light sources for drug discovery?"

"Oh, drug discovery?! GROW UP!"

Have you tried asking AI?

You can avoid most of the paint by just ignoring DST. Don't change you clocks. Helps if your work is flexible about hours, but you can always move some evening stuff to the morning and vise versa.

Try it, you will find that it's no real effort to remember everyone else's clocks are off by an hour.

Look at Nepal, in the UTC+05:45 timezone. They aren't even the only ones who like to break technology with their non-whole-hour timezone.

The world seems to be moving towards trying to simplify time a bit, e.g. by discontinuing leap seconds. Personally I'd start a project to build a booster large enough to correct the Earth's orbit of the sun to a nice round 256 days, but since there doesn't seem to be much support for that at least we can stop bothering with DST.