Yeah, really seems like if you want to compare speeds -- either runner vs bus or cars vs bus -- you shouldn't be looking at "MPH," but rather "Passenger MPH." A bus carrying 50 people one mile in ten minutes is not going at 6MPH, it's going at 300PMPH; a human being running that one mile in 10 minutes is not running 6MPH, but 6PMPH. (If I did the math right).

Children, when they travel internationally, often travel without a credit card.

Because it's news for Nerds and I don't know what's more nerd than "fuck it, sure I can buy it but I'll solder it together myself."

Huh, what are the odds that MIT releases yet another paper with subjective contrarian views on productivity with AI?

There is a MASSIVE conflict of interest with these MIT papers here, and nobody's calling it out.
So yeah, okay, sure, MIT thinks:

  - AI makes you dumber (with methodology nobody without a dedicated lab can duplicate)
  - 95% of ai projects fail (using extremely rigid metrics and ignoring norms in the larger industry to reach conclusions, while including prototypes and showboat projects nobody else ever consider "enterprise" level)
  - AI makes you a worse student (soapboxing, with no repeatable methodology at at all)

And now...
  - Talked to some people, and discovered that AI doesn't actually make you more productive at coding.

Are you seeing the theme here?
No? Okay, let me spell it out for you.

This is agenda driven blogging, not science.
And you shouldn't believe any of it.

Reading all these comments makes it clear that we on Slashdot have become who we used to ridicule: Science-denying zealots.

Far more likely it wasn't considered social media because there's no algorithm pushing for engagement, it's just humans communicating with humans in a way that is unmediated by some random company and its attempts to drive outrage, engagement, and shopping.

It's so frustrating.

My favorite is when laymen see the word "intelligence" and think that we're talking about cognition.
We're not, and rarely have been. Diatribes like this one use language so subjectively, that it's not really even clear what they mean by "thinking" in the first place, or whether machines can or can't do it. If by "thinking" they mean "reasoning" then they are wrong. Reasoning has a definition. The stochastic parrot crowd was proven wrong again by emergent structures, and the machine does do it, or at least... it can. It's complicated.

Feels like splitting hairs to me.
The kind of thing you only put together when you're feeling threatened by existential dread and sexy waifus.

I feel like we've all been there.

I'm assuming that was a sincere question rather than rheotrical: I am, in fact, a parent (no quotes), and I have children (no quotes). When I set them up on Roblox, I specifically set up those accounts with their actual ages, because I wanted Roblox to know that they're kids and do whatever it can (which is not enough, but better than if it thinks they're adults) to protect them.

I live right south of San Francisco so I want to note for the record: I, at least, do actually believe you're making shit up.

Person 1: "The earth is flat"
Person 2: "That's kind of a stupid take."
Person 1: "Whenever I see anyone responding with a personal attack (even an indirect one), I see a tacit acknowledgement that the point cannot be questioned on its merits."
Some assertions are so dumb, they require no refutations, because only dumb people believe them. Honestly, the reason the internet has gone to shit is because the cost to post a stupid thing is vastly lower than the post to thoroughly demonstrate why it's a stupid thing.

The real problem with AI, and the AI discussion is how muddy it is. Are we talking about llm's diffusion models, or classification systems? Do we mean to say that we're talking about transformers or the underlying architecture? Are we discussing huge data centers or device based AI? Nascent, active, or dormant compute? And the same is true for the ethics, legal, and data governance conversation.

Every single one of these things is a different discussion.

AI is not a monolith.

I'm sorry for your loss :( And that's always the risk of a low widthrawal rate, that you're leaving money (and enjoyment of it) on the table, of course, that's your choice, and depends on where you want the money you don't use to go, be it charities or family.

The numbers have been revised a little, closer to 4.5%, and that's still super conservative (that's the amount of money you'd need to spend to survive the worst case scenario for 30 years). With 1.5 Mil in savings, you could safely withdraw $65K/year and be safe. The average of safety is closer to 7%, which means that you only need $1M to retire (yeah, with a bit more risk). Here's a really good article that explains it: https://www.fa-mag.com/news/ch... And of course, there's also there's Bergen's book "A Richer Retirement: Supercharging the 4% Rule to Spend More and Enjoy More"

That is somewhat misleading. In this case you control (more or less) the client, so you can install a root certificate on your firewall and the client and let the firewall do its MitM on all your traffic. If Windows tries to evade that, the firewall will fail to decrypt the traffic and block it, which was the intended result. If Windows does not evade the MitM, the firewall can do full L7 filtering just like in the good old days.