I'm not sure if that's true, but it would make sense if it was. Alpha males (ignoring there is no such thing) are the most restricted by laws, because they are the most likely to get their way if there was no enforcement of laws (through the natural law of might makes right). So it shouldn't be surprising that they'd be the least likely to let something slide without getting the police involved to get the same outcome they could have done themselves if the laws allowed them to use their own physical force. "Less alpha" individuals may be more used to not getting their way regardless of the laws, are therefore feel less entitled to get the police involved as quickly.

My guess is you don't use Cursor very much if a $20 monthly subscription is enough for your needs. I still run into limits with Anthropic's $200 per month (I have 13% of my weekly allotment left with 13 hours left in the week), and I just use it as a hobbyist. Even though I am a very active hobbyist, I still can't imagine someone using these tools even 10 hours a week on just a $20 per month plan.

Who do you know that was trained on stuff that will happen in the future?

It is insane that the EU hasn't done more to create local tech companies to reduce their reliance on the US. They need their own version of Baidu, Alibaba, and Tencent (among others), just like China does. It's fine to leverage allies for certain parts of your economy, but the tech sector is right up their with military when it comes to industries where the EU shouldn't be depending on external allies so strongly. It's not like the EU has the same religious devotion to free markets that the US has which would make them hesitant to prop up their local tech companies for 10+ years until they could survive on their own.

I found an EU report from 2025 that suggested it would take $5 trillion to do this, which would be about 5% of the government revenue of all EU countries combined if done over a decade. Just like efforts to become less reliant on the US military complex, the EU should really get started.

In 1998, 1 Mbps of bandwidth cost $1200 per month. Today it is about 10 cents. The past never perfectly predicts the future, but I wouldn't be on the side who thinks AI won't be significantly cheaper in the near future. My Claude subscription costs be $200 per month today and gives me $2500-3000 worth of tokens per month. But in 5 years that same amount of usage will probably be a few hundred, and in ten years it will probably be $50.

You obviously weren't around for the petrified with hot grits era of Slashdot.

I'd say the government is far more capable of determining what's in the best interest of their children than the parents, but in its current state they don't leverage that capability or even have a desire to do so.

The chances that a parent has the same access to child psychologists, researchers, teacher's associations, and any other groups necessary to determine the child's best interests is laughable. The chances that a parent will base their decisions more from their own biases and ignorance than on careful research is high.

But the chances that the government in practice will do all of those things, and put in practices to effectively allow parents / teachers / etc to provide feedback on an individual child to make exceptions to broad rules, are also laughably low. So in practice it's far better to allow parents to make those decisions, even though I wouldn't consider it ideal.

Agreed completely. If a parent helps the kid register, there shouldn't be any problem here. Working as intended as far as I'm concerned.

Why not just use Unreal Engine? I'd do the same thing as this parent.

No it won't. It may change the wording, but not the answer. I just asked Gemini what the capital of the US was five times using Google, and got five unique responses. All of them said it was Washington DC though.

No, they said Google tells the truth 90% of the time, not 10%.

How does any of what you said matter? Even if you think making $140K isn't upper middle class, the research still shows more people are going from $90k to $140k than those who are going from $90k to $40k. It still shows that more people in the middle class, however you define it, are going up in income than are going down.

These categories are just arbitrary lines used to make it easier for people to identify and understand the insights analysts are able to pull from the data. And however you slice it, the data shows a story of improvement. Not as much improvement as I'd like to say, but improvement overall. We have been seeing the same trend for 30+ years.

What this story doesn't show is the dark side of an otherwise good development. Most people don't really notice day-to-day how much better off the 1% are because there are so few of them (by definition). But when a growing number of people see 30%+ of people around them living much better lives, they begin to notice.

The smallest (and only) open weight model that gets Opus or Sonnet level coding performance is MiniMax M2.5, and you need about 512GB of VRAM for that model (with enough room for input tokens). At 128GB you are looking at Opus 4.0 / Haiku 4.5 level models like Qwen 3.5 122B-A1 at Q4 or Qwen3-Coder-Next 80B-A3B at Q8.

I think it's likely we will have small language models that specifically target coding that are at Opus 4.6 quality on 128-256GB of VRAM in the next couple years, I don't think we are there yet.

AI-generated code is just this generation's version of copying code from the web or from another part of the codebase. Sometimes that person understood the code fully, and sometimes they just checked to see if the output matched what they expected.

The only uniquely dangerous thing about this recent iteration of that problem is the massive scale.

No, CEOs are trying to show their board, investors, and activist investors that they have a plan for how to take advantage of AI and can at least keep up with their competitors use of AI, if not surpass them. I work at a large enterprise (close to 50k employees) and VPs are being told that they need to find ways for AI to have an impact on their department or their leaders will find someone who can. If it isn't happening fast enough consultants are brought in to take over their department's transformative roadmap and leaders who can't keep up are relegated to being SMEs until they are eventually replaced. I'm not in the room when that message is given, but I've seen the rapid shift of VPs who were raising alarms nearly immediately turn into AI cheerleaders.

If you work for a publicly traded or VC backed company I assure you your CEO does not have a choice on whether to jump on the AI bandwagon. That's not how hype driven bubbles work.