"I'm assuming any domestic worker at this point has to be physically here for some reason."

I wouldn't assume that. The reason could simply be that the hiring manager wanted the team member local to make them easier to manage and interact with. Sure it cost more than offshoring them, but the onshoring cost could have been justifiable. Now there's a 100k new reasons to reconsider it.

There will be cases where they really do need to be physically onsite, security as you suggested being one reason. Having to interact with physical hardware/assets as part of their role is another. In some cases they'll pay the 100k for the h1b, in some they'll hire an American... in others they'll figure out an offshoring solution, in others they'll just eliminate the position entirely.

I'd be very surprised if there is much of a net increase in jobs for American's as a result of this policy.

"repairable"? Its a system on a chip. For the most part ... either it works or it doesn't. There's not much to repair. That said.. yeah, I've got an intellivision flashback that died pretty quickly - so i guess its a valid concern.

I'm disappointed in the game selection on the Spirit. It doesn't have the Dungeons and Dragons games (which also go by minotaur and crown of kings to avoid licensing the DnD name).

It does say it sports a usb port for "game expansion" - so maybe there's a way in there. (official or otherwise).

HDMI and wireless are nice though. I really can't be bothered to hook the original one up with its its whole ancient antenna hookup system. The flashback was nice while it lasted because it was at least RCA. I use jzintv now on a PC.

I currently have usb adapters for both the original system controllers and the littler ones that came with the intellivision flashback a few years ago - works very well.

But wireless would be nice, so I might still buy it for the controllers if someone figures out how to get them working with a PC.

Came here to say exactly this. I don't care if we're winning or losing some sort of competition with other countries. Turning our backs on progress in renewable energy, health care, education, etc. just out of ideological spite is bad all on its own. It doesn't matter whether or not it puts us behind in some global dick-measuring contest as well.

Aargh...

Are we only counting pets that were actually mine? Or do family pets count? I've no idea what i would have originally used.

If its the first its LA... or maybe I put L.A. or maybe Los Angeles or sometimes i misspell it Los Angelos... so maybe i did that.

If its the 2nd one, then its St. John's... but maybe I put in St Johns without the apostrophe and period? Does that matter? I might even have put in Saint Johns...

Oh... wait... does it want the city I lived in when the pet was born, or the city the pet itself was born in? Because if the latter then its Mt. Pearl... although i might have put Mount Pearl? Actually that's just where the pet's mother's owners lived.

And I think now you understand why I'm totally locked out of my account in the first place. Good luck getting in.

"If you shrink from such a future, by which principle would you justify stifling it?"

(Addressing the author of the article here, not that I'm under any illusion that they're reading this.)

Kudos for the rhetorical trick of framing opposition to your plan as stubbornness or unreasonableness on the part of the questioner. It's clever, but it's kind of a shame that that's not how burden of proof works. It's not up to us to prove your way is wrong, it's up to you to prove that your way is better than what we already have.

You give us a full paragraph of rosy-sounding suppositions. Yeah, if they're all true this method sounds wonderful. IF. Are they? Suppose you give us some evidence to support them? Frankly, the whole thing sounds like a mash-up of The Diamond Age and 1984. I don't think either book describes a society I'd like to live in.

Finally, I know it's just the name of the magazine in which the article is published, but having just re-watched a certain 1970 movie I have a deep distrust of any AI project even tangentially associated with that name.

Zuck didn't fall asleep at the wheel. He was driving straight for the cesspool, wide awake, and on purpose from the beginning. Anyone who couldn't see where he was going was simply not looking.

I don't disagree, but if you want to supplant the public square with an online space, it needs to be decentralized and ideally should actually belong to the public.

I knew it! This is why TV shows and movies are so dark you can't see what's happening, isn't it? Time to move production to the southern hemisphere, I guess.

AIs don't kill jobs. CEOs with AIs kill jobs!

We're missing the point, I think. It's not that the new model can recreate Slack in 11,000 lines and only 30 hours, it's that the new model can simply work on a single task for 30 hours without shitting itself. Whether or not it produced anything of value in the end is irrelevant.

Weird flex, man. The world of AI corporate one-upmanship is even stranger than the world of AI development, I guess.

The article is truncated by The Verge's "subscribe to see the rest" policy, but the Wayback Machine has it in full. Near the end is an odd quote:

âoeItâ(TM)s been actually really helpful to have a continuous running prompt that I use of, âDo a deep web search, come up with like these parameters for profiles to source for certain types of roles on my team,â(TM)â Penn said.

Did an AI write that, or is that just what happens to your brain after interacting with an AI for too long? Is it even English? I sure as hell can't parse it.

(No, I'm not going back to fix the Unicode. The 21st century is a quarter over already. It's high time Slashdot moved into it.)

Yeah, pretty much this. And in order to get halfway repeatable results we'll have to formalize the prompting language. It will just become the next rung on the high-level language ladder and will still require specialists (ie., programmers) to write it. Because English suuuuuuuuuuucks for any kind of formal description.

Not that I think it's really going to happen. I think coding via AI is going to be another fad that gets relegated to a niche position in the toolkit. Just like all the visual specification and programming languages that have been cropping up since before I started my career in the 1980s.

No offense, but if you even get to the summary and don't comment just based on the headline... You must be new here.

It's an impossible job from a technology perspective. It requires the bad guys to play nice. You can make a secure system that keeps your data out of the hands of everyone, that's not an issue. But you don't want to keep it out of the hands of everyone. You have it online so you can give it out selectively to people and companies. As soon as you let someone see any part of it, though, that part is no longer under your control. I don't care what fancy permissions and terms of use you have on it, you're just trusting that your wishes are respected. Let's face it, if we could trust companies to play nice we wouldn't be in this situation to start with.

Not possible, technically. It might be possible legally, if lawmakers create and enforce penalties for non-compliance. Europe might do it, but no way such anti-business legislation is going to pass in the USA. Not for another decade at least.

Nonsense. It should be plenty profitable to offer a subscription service that lets you disable the AI. Mostly. They'll still let a little in and ramp it up slowly, so they can offer a "plus" subscription add-on later that lets you disable the AI you thought you already paid to disable. Really, truly, no backsies this time.

As a maintenance programmer for most of my career, non-reproducible builds were the bane of my existence. Object files with embedded time stamps and source paths, changes in link order, which module got done compiling first when doing multiple modules in parallel... Hell, even uninitialized padding bytes to align to word boundaries could change from build to build. We were using C and gcc, so it might be fair to say that was our problem. I'm not even sure it's possible for that toolchain to produce identical binaries every time for any non-trivial project.

"It uses less electricity than a modern frig"

So that seemed incredible; but after doing some research it is plausible (with caveats). I have a few questions:

1) What 'modern' fridge are you using for comparison? There is a substantial difference between 1982, 2002 and 2022.
2) What are the volumes of the two fridges being compared?

The average 1940s fridge looks to be only 6-8 cu ft; while the average 2000s fridge is 20+ cu ft. Even if it slightly beats the modern fridge on total electricity, it's probably only cooling 1/3 to 1/4 the volume

For example in the 1940s you might be around 400kWh; but if its 7cu ft, its only getting 57kWh/cu ft/year; and comparing it to a 550kWh fridge from 2002 cooling 21 cu ft for 26kWh/cu ft/year. (And that's a 20 year old not particularly efficient "modern" fridge... you could get that down to 300kWh annually on a new fridge if you buy specifically for efficiency)

Sure the 1940s fridge might beat that not particularly modern or efficient "modern fridge" on total use but it's still not really a win unless you only need 7 cu ft. And if all you need is 7 cu fit, in 2025 you can get 8 cu ft for 167kWh year. (60% less electricity)

cites: some data on 2025 fridges
https://shrinkthatfootprint.co...

data on refrigeration energy usage and capacity over time:
https://www.researchgate.net/f...
https://appliance-standards.or...