One of my favorite parts about using AI instead of StackOverflow is that I don't have to justify my request to a bunch of pompous people who pretend they know all of the details of my requirements and that I'm an idiot for wanting to do something a particular way. AI will often have some great alternative suggestions if it questions my proposed implementation, but at the end of the day it gives me solutions to the exact scenario I specified.

Trump's order effectively serves two purposes:

• - Shows which oligarchs are willing to put themselves on leashes for him
• - Projects more power for Trump than the law actually bestows

Under normal circumstances, it would be entertaining to watch the world's richest and most powerful people utterly humiliate themselves just for the opportunity to gain a little more wealth and power. However, the fact that their capitulation bolsters Trump's power robs me of all enjoyment. Power can't be taken without being relented. If people come to believe that Trump actually has the power to do things that the law doesn't allow, they won't resist being robbed of that power.

The whole thing is nothing short of amazing: you can be worth more than a trillion dollars and it still can't buy you dignity, autonomy, or self-respect. They've completely enslaved themselves to greed and I have zero sympathy for them since it's a choice they continuously opt to make. Keep dancing, puppets! We can't enjoy it now, but we can put it in the vault and laugh at you after all of this shit finally blows over.

I'm pretty sure I can't just go climb up on traffic light support arms and install my own cameras without some kind of legal authority - why can these guys?

Because you didn't get the local police department to agree to ToS which one party can change on a whim to say whatever they want after you initially agreed. I have no idea what their ToS actually state and I'm not sure anyone in the police departments do either. Who wastes the time to read what I imagine is 20+ pages of legal documents written to be purposely difficult to understand and can be changed whenever one party of the agreement wants?

We all thought the road to fascism would paved via authoritarians handing over power in pay-to-play schemes (and there's certainly been a lot of that in the past two years) but another avenue is for private organizations to fuck over the government using the same means they've been using to fuck over private citizens. These companies are effectively writing their own legislation with no oversight and no legal recourse other than "take our latest terms or leave". Eventually they're going to push the wrong people too far and get what they deserve, but they've been pushing for a surprisingly long time with virtually no repercussions.

Retirement? The guy worked at IBM for nearly 30 years and ended employment in the 90s - he was very likely collecting a fat pension on top of those fat contractor paychecks. And healthcare was far cheaper then as well. This guy definitely wasn't hurting.

It is typical behavior for American companies to do whatever they want regardless of the laws. The worst they'll suffer is a fine that is often less than the cost of complying, and much less when you factor in the opportunity cost incurred by the inevitable delays caused by complying. In most cases, you'd be better off saying "no" to data centers, although that would get in the way of your data sovereignty ambitions. Before allowing projects like this, you need to realize that American companies are not going to comply with your laws unless you dramatically increase your penalties first.

So if a half-dozen or so chipped in, they could do it with money pulled out of the couch cushions in the C-suite.

The problem is that every company is looking at every other company to go first. They likely have the mindset "company X has a larger budget or company Y has a larger dependency on PHP, so they should be the ones to contribute".

And have them flip-flop at every change in the administration. DEI, anti-DEI, DEI, ...

It's exhausting keeping an eye on their ever-growing CoCs.

Yes, heaven forbid the government provide some incentives to the companies that manage our infrastructure to invest in better technology rather than milk the old tech in perpetuity.

Not to mention that if Comcast doesn't like the fact that their competitors are getting subsidies for offering a better product, Comcast is free to start running fiber, get those subsidies, and have a more competitive product to offer their customers.

use that root to sign a nice long-lived certificate (say, 10 years)

Apple caps that at 825 days. That's still a somewhat long time, but they can shorten it whenever they feel like it. And I fully expect them to do that sometime after the 47-day max for public CAs becomes normalized.

The branding became an all encompassing thing and that was a mistake that had to be rectified. People thought of it all as summarising text, generating images and natural English commands (generative model use) and wanted to gut the lot because of it. It's similar to the mistake Mozilla made where they included a toggle to

Chop off the end of the first paragraph before submitting the form?

It's not about bandwidth, it's about latency. These days audio sample libraries are huge and the latency of loading these samples from an external drive causes lots of stuttering during playback. Some libraries have the capability of loading a portion of all samples into memory before playback to account for such latency, but many don't have this capability. And I find it funny that a company that goes to ridiculous lengths to shave off a fraction of a millimeter from their laptops for the sake of portability has fans that state the solution to the problems Apple has created is to carry an external drive and cable everywhere.

For me, the biggest news is the possibility of a tokenized stock exchange. I have no interest at all in cryptocurrency, but I would like more transparency and control over my assets which could potentially be done if they were tokenized. If it was designed securely, it could prevent shadow transactions and would expose frontrunning. Also, I have a lot less trust in stock exchanges in the past couple of decades due to all of their fuckery, so I wouldn't mind holding onto the assets directly after they're traded. While I'm not currently concerned about a rug pull of my assets, there have been claims that exchanges have been surreptitiously selling shares on margin without the owner's knowledge. Just twenty years ago I would have dismissed such claims as complete nonsense, but after seeing Wells Fargo get caught doing something similar with money held in bank accounts they managed, it's now entered the realm of possibility in my mind. While the reports may just be conjecture, it's spooked some people into purchasing direct-registered shares to ensure that such fuckery can't be committed.

Regardless of the motivation, tokenized assets could inject some trust into a system in which trust has been extremely eroded. And for the aforementioned reasons, I'll be very skeptical of all implementations since the people in power have too much to lose from allowing their shenanigans to be exposed and to lose direct control of people's assets.

It became political when a large group of women, mostly on the far left, insisted that she be free from the consequences of her actions and told any men who dissented that they're not allowed to have an opinion about it since they've never given birth.

everything else can be blamed on Obama, burden or Hillary

The rare autocorrect Freudian slip.