By not spending all their time grouping people into different "races" and judging them by their stereotypes of said races as invariant characteristics of not only first-generation immigrants, but all descendants therefrom, despite the latter growing up in your society, while freaking out about any change, as though every society is constantly changing, let alone one that specifically formed as a melting pot that prided itself on inviting everyone in?

Not that there haven't always been racists.

1840s-1880s: "F***ing Irish!"
1850s-1940s: "F***ing Chinese!"
1880s-1920s: "F***ing Italians! F***ing Slavs! F***ing Jews!"
1890s-1940s: "F***ing Japanese!"
1914-1920: "F***ing Germans!"
Late 1800s-Present: "F***ing Mexicans!"
1970s-Present: "F***ing Muslims!"

Who do you think will be next, while the previous groups become "normal" in the US? How many people of Italian descent do you see going around speaking Italian and living as if it were Italy in the early 1900s? In general, often even in the second generation, and esp. by third and beyond, immigrants' origins generally just becomes a historic fact rather than a daily lived thing. There may be some signature dish that you cook, or you may have a dream to some day visit the country your ancestors came from, or you (might) still be the religion of your ancestors, or whatnot. But you speak the local language, your hobbies are and interests by and large in-distribution for the country, your education was the same standardized education, etc. And over time, due to intermarriage, ancestry increasingly becomes diverse and less defining - "I'm X% Irish, Y% English, Z% Italian..." etc. Skin colour or part of the world doesn't change it. Ever met a south Asian-ancestry Brit? They're not out there talking like a call centre operator from New Delhi and eating curry every day, they're eating at Nandos and calling each other "bruv" and the like.

This is how all "peoples" form. Do you think there just happened to be 143 million people defining themselves as "Russian" living across this massive landmass? No - the Russian empire conquered a massive diverse range of people, and then assimilated them to be "Russians", through education, intermarriage, etc. At least in the US people are living there willingly and had a choice in the matter.

It's like this everywhere. Do you think there just happened to be a people called "The English"? No, there were Gaelic peoples there, then Romans, then Angles and Saxons, then vikings, and on and on. Flows of people are the nature of history, both during wartime and peacetime. I'm as white as they come, but genetic tests show a tiny bit of African ancestry - from a percentage basis, maybe back into the 1600-1700s - because hey, there were "Moors" in Europe then too. "Most" genetics in Iceland sees Y chromosomes *mainly* showing Scandinavian roots and mitochondria *mainly* showing British isles roots, but there's also, for example, a not insignificant bit of Greenlandic genetics here.

Even the most isolated places in the world see a free flow of genetics. Tristan da Cunha is considered the most remote settlement on Earth, with its 238 people. Boats only arrive once every few months, and to visit you have to get special permission from the Island Council. There were 7 surnames on the island, from the island's original male settlers. This expanded to 10 in the 1960s after some islanders intermarried during an evacuation due to the island's volcano. But genetics show the presence of an Eastern European ancestor from the early 1900s, possibly from a Russian sailing ship. Even on the most remote place on Earth, genetic flow exists - and it does not harm a damned thing, and is in fact, very much a good thing.

And culture flows even easier than genetics. Culture is constantly changing, radically. Even the things that ultraconservatives see as timeless and want to force society back to aren't nearly as timeless as they think. Think, for example, of the idea of the "housewife", a woman who stays at home and raises the kids while the husband goes out to work. That's a Victorian invention that only became the "norm" for a few decades in the post-WWII period. Traditionally (after the hunter-gatherer phase, and the agrarian phase), the standard family unit was the family business. People work from home, and everyone - husband, wife, children - all work on different aspects of the business. Maybe the husband is a fisherman and the wife a fishmongerer. Maybe it's a family of cobblers, and the husband cuts the leather pieces while his wife stitches them. Etc. But everyone worked. In comes the Industrial Revolution. Now most everyone still works, but they're working out of the house. The home becomes a refuge, separate from the workplace. An increasing (though small) percentage of the population is starting to gain a comfortable income and gain airs of nobility. The notion of "separate spheres" arises, with the workplace being "the man's sphere" and the home being "the woman's sphere", and it became an aspirational goal to have a wife at home who doesn't have to work, a status symbol of wealth. Very few people actually lived like this - most people still needed to work. It wasn't until the post-WWII boom that this actually became any sort of "norm" in society, where it was the status for most adult women and those who had to work were looked down on for it. And it was a status that most women found they hated, which is what led to the later liberation movement.

Genetics shift. Culture shifts. And people are not their ancestors. Societies are fluid things, where genes flow and a marketplace of ideas works not based on ancestry, but what people enjoy. Focus on actually competing in the marketplace of ideas. If what you define as your "culture" is so great, convince people that it is. "Being a racist bigot" is, I hate to break it to you, not a good way to accomplish that. It's always the most cringeworthy inbred yokels out there drawling "The WHITE RACE is the SUPERIOR RACE!".

I don't give a shit about movement to the right or left, not right now. I just want basic competence and support for the rule of law, because those are the things we've totally lost under the current GOP. A bit of compassion would be good, too. What I wouldn't give to have Dubya back.

That was actually my thought. It wasn't until I got to the mention of Twitter than I figured out they didn't mean X11.

I did think switching from X11 to Wayland was a funny thing to post publicly about. And a funny thing for /. to pick up.

I think you give him too much credit. I don't think his "messaging strategy" has any design, nor is it a strategy. It's just Trump saying whatever shit bubbles to the top of what sometimes passes for a mind. And it's random and changes every four hours because he's random and changes what he believes every four hours. Or every four minutes.

I don't think he even "learned" to act like a reality show... I think this is just who he is and who he always has been, albeit with an added layer of growing dementia. He was moderately successful on reality TV not because he figured out how to be moderately successful on reality TV, but because his normal personality, style and complete lack of ethics, morality or consistency just happens to be perfect for reality TV.

Hahahahaha.

I think after this moronic attack, they now know they don't actually need nukes, at least not until the world loses its appetite for oil, or finds other sources that make Gulf state production irrelevant.

Also, even if this fallacious claim were true, it wouldn't actually support Arrogant-Bastard's claim, which wasn't about the state of AI now, but a claim about "intrinsic properties", meaning it would be true forever.

Nonsense. LLMs point out my mistakes all the time. And I point out theirs. At this point there's more of the latter than the former, but both absolutely happen all the time.

Not as much as you might think. Definitely not as much as at most companies.

I think it depends less on workflow and more on screen layout. If you run your browser maximized on a landscape-mode display, there's a lot of horizontal real estate that isn't very well-used, while vertical space is at a premium. So it makes sense to move tabs to the side.

On the other hand, if you don't maximize your window but keep it as narrow as possible (so you can see other windows) but just wide enough that sites render well, then you'll probably prefer them on top.

On the gripping hand, if you're like me and run your browser full-screen on a portrait mode screen, then you have gobs of vertical real-estate and tabs on top definitely makes sense.

(I have three monitors, a 32" (landscape) in the center, which is where my IDE, editors, and "focused" work lives, and a 27" portrait orientation monitor on each side. The left one has a full-screen browser window for work stuff and the right one has a full-screen browser window for personal stuff. It's fantastic.)

Mmmm.... if anything it's "what the Google engineers want emphasized". Executives at Google have surprisingly little control over technical decisions. For nearly all of Google's existence it's been an almost completely bottom-up driven company and while in the last few years management has been trying to exert more control it's a very, very slow process.

It's actually the engineering-driven culture that produces Google's infamous tendency to abandon products. Stuff gets built because some engineers think it's a good idea and convince their managers to let them run with it. Then eventually it gets boring and engineers tend to wander off to other teams in search of something interesting. If the product has managed to achieve significant userbase and/or revenue stream (and keep in mind that both are measured on Google scales; so anything less than 100M users or $1B/year is "not signficant").

In a top-down company products don't get built until they have significant executive support, which requires a fairly detailed plan, which gets executed and adjusted, and if an exec's project is in trouble it will get support. At Google products kind of wander out the door and into the world and if they happen to be a hit, great, if not, well, unless there are legally-binding contracts obligating the company to support something, it just gets shut down. Even with the projects that the executive leadership are really excited about (like AI!), their influence is mostly limited to shoveling resources at it.

Anyway, the point is that execs likely have little to no influence on Gemini training beyond setting very broad guidelines, and even those might not have much effect.

That's a strong statement. Can you explain why that isn't also true of human brains? What's the intrinsic difference?

Still, Slashdot doesn't have to play along with their weasel wording. For example, "ergonomic collars that deliver an electric pulse" - just say "shock collar". Don't help them whitewash what they're talking about.

Artemis II is breaking Apollo 13's record by about 4100 miles. The primary reason they're going further is because they're passing much farther from the moon, about 4000 miles, compared to 158 miles for Apollo 13. The moon is also a little further from Earth, accounting for the other 250 miles.

Agreed. I live in the mountain west, and our forest and mountain landscapes are just covered with fencing, even though most of it is public land, because it's BLM "multi-use" land -- a lot of cattle graze on it. Fences are expensive to build and expensive to maintain. If you think a fence is something you build once and then ignore, you've never dealt with cattle.

Cowboys (and sheep herders) have a term "ride fence" as in "Bob, you're gonna ride fence today", and it's a regular and tedious task that means "get on your horse (or ATV) and ride past miles and miles of fenceline, looking for places where the fence is broken or going to break, and fixing them". It's necessary and expensive drudgery and having all of those fencelines is bad for other uses, and bad for wildlife. I've put down a few deer that jumped a barbed wire fence and didn't quite clear it, slicing their guts open and leaving them in agony as they slowly die.

In addition, there's an obvious tension between the cost of building and maintaining fences and the cost of rounding up cattle when it's time to move them. Obviously if you slice the land up into lots of small fenced areas, the cattle will be easy to find -- but they're also going to graze it out fast, so you're going to have to move them more often. If you use very large enclosures (common on BLM land), then your cows may have hundreds of square miles to roam and feed... but when it's time to move them you have to find them. Luckily they're herd animals so when you find a few you've found them all, but still. And occasionally, singles get separated from the herd and you just lose them, which isn't great since a cow is worth about $2k.

So... if we can replace those miles of expensive and constantly-breaking fences with virtual fences, that's good news for everyone. Wildlife and outdoorsmen can roam unimpeded, cattle can be far more tightly controlled, strays quickly identified, located and reunited with the herd -- via remote control!. This is an innovative idea that is worth quite a lot.