The factual reality it ignores is that mistakes by the judicial system in cases covering petty crime, family court, domestic disputes, civil torts, etc., have nothing whatsoever to do with mistakes made in capital cases. Asserting that mistakes made in a local municipal court, which would never see a capital case, is grounds for banning capital punishment is like saying that worms in avocados imported from Mexico means the sale of all fruit grown in the US should be banned.

Conflating capital cases with non-capital cases works against your cause, not for it. If you don't understand that, then you are less likely to achieve your goals. Zealotry -- which is fundamentally a political pose -- is not an efficient means to create change.

That is the most politically saturated comment I've read on Slashdot in years. It completely ignores factual reality in order to push a specific agenda.

Here's a hint: if you want your cause to be taken seriously, don't become blinded by zealotry. In this case, there are plenty enough things wrong with the death penalty that you don't need to make this sort of off-putting overgeneralization, and, by doing so, you are harming your cause, rather than helping it.

OK, which particular aspect of the LLM learning do you think doesn't exist in the human brain? Backprop exists (and the other training methods the brain uses has similar effects), embeddings more or less exists and seems to be very similar to the LLM embeddings (shown by brain activation in various areas linearly matching with embeddings) - see e.g. High-level visual representations in the human brain are aligned with large language models (Adrien Doerig et al, 2025), and speech/text generation by humans has similar error patterns as for LLMs.

They obviously don't learn in the EXACT same way, but there's also clearly a lot of bits that are the same, and I'm fairly sure nobody knows how much is similar yet, particularly not weighted by importance.
 

Was it a good story? If it was an engaging read then why care whether AI was used to help write it.

The use-case for Concorde on trans-Atlantic passage was cemented for me when my uncle explained that every time he flew from NYC to London to talk to investors about his company, the stock price went up far more than the cost of his trip on the Concorde, and he could be back in time to sleep in his own bed the same day.

Seems like a no-brainer to me. I'm pretty sure (as others have pointed out) that if it weren't for the Continental-caused accident, the Concorde would likely have flown an additional decade.

Looking at current travel, there is enough demand to pack planes on BOS/NYC-SFO, SFO-HND, etc. routes that I'm sure there's enough business money to pay for supersonic service.

Remember kids, when you want to understand at a very basic level what an act does, take the name and turn it to its opposite. The Clarity Act is -- without knowing anything else -- much more likely to be about leagalizing obfuscation than any else.

Distributed power means having 2-3 orders of magnitude more power sources than with centralized systems. That increases the likelihood of an accident by the same factor.

In the US, we have already had near-disaster level nuclear accidents with about 100 total plants. Let's be generous and say that only one was really bad, TMI. That's a 1% failure rate where "failure" means the potential for disaster-level accident. If you want to remind yourself of what disaster-level accidents look like, recall what happened in Ukraine at the Chernobyl power plant, which was caused by human error. And recall that TMI was also caused by human error.

With 2-3 orders of magnitude more nuclear plants at 1% failure rate, that means 100-1000 nuclear disasters in the US, unless, somehow, we are able to engineer plants that are 2-3 orders of magnitude safer, and can find operators that make 2-3 orders of magnitude fewer bone-headed mistakes. As an engineer, albeit a non-nuclear one, I find that a daunting challenge. Yes, we as a society are capable of manufacturing at six and seven nines, but that's when we have lots and lots and lots of practice making things. Right now, nuclear plants only have two nines, with most of the relevant design and construction experience aged out. There aren't enough power plants to be made to develop that expertise, and we'll have plenty of disasters along the way as we learn, where disasters have centuries-long consequences.

So distributed nuclear power? No. Frelling. Thank. You.

Exactly. Just because a design is new with shiny gadgets does not mean it is automatically better than what has been previously on sale.

The sooner the newer generations understand this idea is nothing more than pure marketing hype, the sooner we can break away from and reject the enshittification.

Yours is a far more eloquent way of saying what I had intended to: why is this on Slashdot? Is there any relevance at all? I fail to see it.

If these athletes were coached by AI, well... maybe, but that's a stretch. But they're not; they are just taking more extreme measures to performance enhancement than other athletes. And while I know (and employ) some smart jocks, I had the same experience as you in secondary school, because I, too, was not a jock.

The simplest and most likely explanation is that the license ran out and the copyright owner wanted too much money or some other onerous condition, so google decided to wait until the next satellite pass when they'll get all the imagery.

Only recently has it been anything other than relative ranking.

What questions that they asked, for which he said the answers were on the web site, can he not legally answer?

He clearly had an axe to grind with CNBC, given his multiple passive-aggressive mentions of how they predicted his downfall.

The one interviewer appeared to strike a body blow when she asked if his motivations were tied to a performance-based compensation package. All of GameStop's flailing malarky makes sense through that lens: the CEO was trying a hail mary, 'cause otherwise he gets didly-squat. Part of that malarky is claiming to own 5% of eBay when, as the main interviewer pointed out, most of that so-called ownership was through derivatives. This guy's a fraud. Time to short GameStop.

The interview shows the CEO is kind of a jerk. He probably shouldn't be put in situations where communication is a requirement, like public interviews that are intended to help achieve an aggressive goal.

It's like he didn't understand he was on air during the conversation, despite the host clearly calling out that there was an audience listening.

The stark response from eBay is certainly understandable, having seen the interview.

Agreed that the Mach-E is a terrible name. But how did they screw up such a guaranteed out-of-the-park home run with an electric Mustang? I mean the whole image of the Mustang is a sporty performance vehicle for the young and stupidly lead-footed. Mustangs are classically known for acceleration and EVs are wickedly good at that. I mean, if Ford were to create a 1965-styled electric Mustang, I shudder to think how many boomers would buy them. They were the dream car of an entire generation.

Ford, are you listening?

What if you write a bunch of random noise of the same file size to weights.bin ... what happens then?