While that's true,

1) We're not talking about an asteroid-sized object
2) We're not talking about one object occulting things
3) We're not talking about one object being occulted.

While you're right, that through pure chance, the likelihood of taking a shot of one particular asteroid occulting one particular star if you take a shot once every 3 nights is near zero. However... one shot from vera rubin captures on average 10,000,000 stars, and around 1000 potential occulters. It's estimated that an occultation will occur in roughly 1 in 10 to 1 in 100 exposures from vera rubin.

Up until very recently weâ(TM)ve not really been looking at large areas of the sky repeatedly every night. There were likely thousands of occultations and we just didnâ(TM)t see them because we werenâ(TM)t looking at that particular bit of the sky when they happened.

Vera Rubin came online a few months ago, and has precisely that job - to take images of a large portion of the sky with a very wide angle very high resolution camera, and compare them every few nights. The result⦠oh look - thereâ(TM)s a dwarf planet, not just occulting things, but reflecting light.

I like how this article was right below one on AI agents accessing bank accounts. For decades I was told to conserve power and water just so companies can use it to run data centers and lay off workers, undermine financial systems, generate scams...

What, you think that classified military industrial complex can achieve the kinds of economies of scale that Chinese toy makers can? Dude, give me a break. China will be making these things for $100 while we make them for $1,000,000.

Ukraine has even been involved in training exercises with NATO troops. Their drone battalions have been regularly wiping out American and British infantry units in exercises, because the Americans and British just don't understand how to fight a war with drones in.

The good news on the running out of people front is that Russia is running out of people 10 times faster. The bad news is, Russia has 4 times as many people. That said, those numbers still lie in Ukraine's favour.

The equipment can be carried by other drones. Though certainly there's all kinds of risks here. A wounded soldier who will die if not extracted has a very different risk profile they'll accept than a healthy soldier going into an attack. You don't want to deliver ammo and supplies to your enemies if the supplies make it, but the soldiers don't. etc etc.

That said, Ukraine has already used a variant on this - they've used these heavy lift drones to deliver land drones that then carry out an attack. That was one of the things that made their recent advances near Lyman possible.

Ah, but you're misunderstanding. His dear orange leader has said Ukraine are bad, and it's definitely their fault that diesel prices are high. Nothing to do with said orange moron attacking Iran. His reality is invested in making sure that Ukraine didn't do anything worthwhile.

No you don't. The seller gets to determine what the product is or isn't. You get to choose whether to buy it or not.

Why would I need to? That's not the determining factor. The determining factor is whether Anthropic wants you to send those queries.

You're signing up for a contract to send data to them. They get to say what content they want sent to them.

Why not? It's their computer program. You've not paid for the computer program, you've paid to send certain content to their servers. They have every right to say "don't send us this content".

At this point, I'm willing to trust the code Claude produces more than the code that Bob produces. It's far from perfect, but it's better than many a junior dev at this point. I suspect with the next generation of agents, it'll be as good as seniors tbh.

No - we don't limit science only to stuff that has already been replicated. You're requiring a higher standard for this paper than we do for any other simply because you disagree with it.

Not quite, no. The study has put out a paper that spells out what they did, that's their "proof of bona fides" as you put it. Now if you want to tear it down, you need to make a reasoned and rational argument about something in that paper, not just shout on the internet.