Interesting.

I didn't consider an inside job before knowing fifty bills were on the table.

The Twin Towers guy only got fourteen bills IIRC.

yeah, I'm sure they were doing updates on the FAA core routers during the busiest part od the travel week, pushing to prod just before the weekend, and at Market close.

C'mon.

Yeah, yeah, they don't want to scare people or admit weakness.

It would be especially odd if this Administration told the truth today for the first time.

Thankfully this turned out to be one-and-done. I totally understand the motivations but I still have stuff to do before the big one.

Okay, what engineer sent out a BGP message claiming a hop count of 1 to 0.0.0.0 and routed the entire Internet through his workstation this time?

These are just Banks. There's no cryptocurrency involved here otherwise the ledgers would be permanent and untraceable and they wouldn't have been able to just seize the money.

The reason they were able to get the money back is because they are getting it back from centralized authorities who control the asset. You might as well just put your money in a bank unless of course you are laundering it because of crime. Which is the real product crypto provides.

Somebody online said Chicago start announcing prefixes on the L3Harris net that didn't belong to them.

True? dunno. "developing..."

But practically speaking, the most common ways to meet a future spouse organically (as opposed to through dating apps) are meeting through friends, meeting at bars, and meeting at work. If you're at that level of a company, your friends mostly are as well, so you're mostly going to meet other execs, and Nvidia sells to almost everybody, so your rules put all of them off the table. You're unlikely to have time to go to bars after work, so that's probably out. And anyone you meet at work will be your subordinate, so that's out.

This leaves... basically no opportunities for naturally meeting someone and striking up a relationship.

Just saying.

Sure. But bear in mind that the heat dissipation is caused by the power consumption, because approximately all of that power consumption eventually becomes heat. So it's two sides of the same coin.

The 1 GW power consumption for a data center is more than four orders of magnitude greater than the most powerful satellite solar arrays ever built to date. (The current record is about 30 kW, I think.) And as long as that is true, it won't really be feasible to put anything approaching an actual data center in space. The tens of thousands of additional launches to get giant fin radiators for the heat dissipation are just the icing on top of an already absurdly impractical cake.

Musk's proposed 250 kW satellite is almost an order of magnitude bigger than anything that has ever been built, and will need an order of magnitude more fin area, but that's at least maybe within the realm of modern heavy launch systems. So again, a single rack in space *might* be feasible, but you'd only have fast access to other stuff within a single rack, which likely limits you to a single instance of current frontier data models, give or take. And one rack likely won't be enough for much longer.

Couple that with 6-year depreciation, where it is expected that the hardware will be so outdated in 6 years that it won't be useful to keep it running, combined with the comical levels of effort required to upgrade a data center in space and the high probability of something that big causing actual damage if you were to deorbit it rather than upgrade it in place, and you have a recipe for bankruptcy.

So this isn't practical on many, many, many levels, not just power consumption or heat dissipation. It's neat from a "Look at us! We can put data centers in space!" perspective, but it's about as practical as a unicycle for quadriplegics.

Could, sure, but there are also very easy ways to mitigate that risk. You can have someone else write that person's performance reviews and manage that person.

Also, when that person is a VP, there's not a whole lot of manager discretion when it comes to performance reviewing, choice assignments, mentoring, or discretionary rewards anyway. Each VP is in charge of a specific area, and the choice of who becomes CEO later is made by the board, not the outgoing CEO, so it's not like he has any say over who gets promoted.

But either way, he could put it in the hands of the board, and that would be the end of the problem.

The challenge, of course, is that when you're in that position, everyone at the company is your subordinate, so if you want a relationship, your choice are execs at other companies or a subordinate. The guy is married, so he shouldn't have had another relationship at all, but if we ignore that moral question for the moment and pretend that he was single at the time, you've just eliminated pretty much every kind of relationship he could realistically have, and that bothers me a bit.

IMO, when someone in a position of authority over someone does something like that, the right questions to ask are who initiated the relationship, whether the other person felt pressured to accept, whether it happened suddenly at the start of the job or after years of spending time together, whether he took steps to protect her from retaliation (e.g. talking to the board about it), etc.

Of course, whether women felt harassed or not, there's still a bright-line problem; he is married, and shouldn't have gotten involved with someone else. But that's a moral concern, not an ethical or legal one. Is that adequate reason to force him to step down? Depends on the company and the image they want to convey.

The real question in my mind is whether the people wanting him back are women or just men. If only men are complaining, then that means the women have concerns, and we should err on the side of caution and listen to the women. If both are complaining equiproportionally, then we should listen to them.

... with the caveat that they all just lost a lot of money, which might bias their attitudes more than just a bit, and those biases should also be taken into consideration.

Might also be fishing for brides...

The main risk with AI is that we're going to hit a tipping point where there isn't enough people employed to keep our society functional anymore.

Basically the tax base collapses, government spending goes with it and that creates a ripple effect where not enough money is moving in the economy companies start doing layoffs which reduces the amount of money moving in the economy so more layoffs and so on so and so forth.

As an added bonus to collapse of the tax base means that there won't be enough money to find police and fire departments and subsidize hospitals in rural communities.

We can't keep automating all the jobs away in world where if you don't work you don't eat. And no matter how many bullets you stockpile you're going to run out of ammo before the world runs out of desperate people with nothing to lose.

Maybe Google rolled something out to you that I haven't seen yet but Google search is still there for me below the AI summary.

This is classic bundling of two unrelated products. No matter what Google says search is not ai and even the dumbest judge on the planet knows that.

We have let right wing extremists completely dismantle our court system so fuck only knows what's going to happen but any legitimate and sensible Court would simply declare this an antitrust law enforcement and tell Google to knock it the fuck off or they're going to split their company in the smaller sub companies.

I don't think we're going to see that though even with the Democrats in charge they have so many fires to put out from the last 2 years and honestly we never recovered from covid because we only got two years of Democrats in charge before voters inevitably put Republicans back in charge during the 2022 midterms.

People always complain about Washington gridlock and then every couple of years they send a Democrat president a republican Congress and the Republican Congress spends 2 years sabotaging everything the Democrat tries to do the help. Then the Democrat loses the presidency and if we're really unlucky like we were this last time the Republicans briefly take Congress.

And frankly we all saw how that went. No matter how big of Republican you are you have to know on some level they screwed you over. If nothing else when you fill up your gas tank. Or when you buy groceries. Or when you pay for healthcare. Or when you read about one of the wars going on. Or...

You log into your Chromebook wirh your .edu account and it disables search for anyone in the org.

Somebody pointed out here last time that if you append &utm=15 or something to the URL it goes back to the old Search.

So it sounds like they're making a huge lie of omission.

What's sad is they could use an LLM to teach Socratically with any search terms but they want so badly to suppress critical thinking and shove "alignment" down kids' throats that they are being belligerent.

The dont-be-evil era company would be making the best teaching Search.

It's a huge market void for someone with more time than I have right now.

What's the best search for error logs these days?

DDG is almost useless.

Google parses and looks up hex codes for you with a cursory explanation.

Its conclusions are often wrong but good enough to point me at the right spec to figure out a bluetooth proxy problem recently.

Though realistically, because 240Pu (from waste) is worse in a fission bomb than 239Pu - generally no more than ~20kT, and challenging to get more than a few kT - still enough to take out a city centre but not a metro area - you'll generally want a fusion weapon, which means deuterium and tritium supplies. And Ukraine doesn't run CANDUs, so you're not going to get tritium from the coolant. They'd need lithium targets / lithium in the coolant to breed tritium. Separation of tritium and deuterium are a mix of chemical, electrochemical, and/or physical separation, but are much easier than uranium isotopic separation (deuterium is double the mass of protium, and tritum triple the mass, so the chemical / electrochemical behavior is actually notably different in a lot of situations, unlike uranium).

For a fusion bomb they'd also want a depleted uranium tamper, but Ukraine probably has ample access to that, whether from weapons, armour, old Soviet stocks, etc. Even spent nuclear fuel is mostly 238U, if they don't mind the tamper being highly radioactive.