What are you using for the streaming services? Netflix etc? A web browser?

If so, that's a complete non-starter; it fails the ease of use expectations of watching TV of the wife using a remote control to turn it on and make it go. (and honestly it fails my own expectations for that matter too; having to reach for a keyboard or mouse to watch a movie or stream a show is just clunky). It also limits you from watching content in 4k.

At the moment, I've got a RokuHD of some sort on one TV, and an nvidia shield on another one. Plex, netflix, f1tv, and a couple other things on both of them. The TV remote can fairly seamlessly control the TV/soundbar and the attached box and it works well, and passes the usability test, but both devices are still more ad-laden than I want.

I've also got computers and consoles hooked up to TVs for gaming and what not, but i find them utterly miserable to use for streaming. Their is no app for linux that I'm aware of. And even the app for Windows is regularly just complete ass to use, and its a PITA to switch from plex to netflix and back etc, and using them with a remote control is pretty trashy. So I've been using the aforementioned boxes for streaming as the least awful way to run things for some years now.

But if there's a better way now, I'm listening.

I look forward to the clash between the sites that require you to prove you're not a bot and everyone currently engaged in the agentic AI circle-jerk. I mean, how can I tell my agent to read and summarize a thread and reply to it in the style of Boris Badenov if the site checks that the user is a human? I mean, maybe I could login and prove my humanity before handing the keyboard over to the agent, but who has time for crap like that? That's the kind of boring busy-work we have computers for.

They started building it 2022, and expect it to be operational in May. In other words: its already pretty much finished.

You are a bit late to the party to shit on its prospects of getting off the ground.

The difference being that finding waldo in a sea of faces almost but not quite waldo, some with the right hat but no glasses, some with the stripe shirt but no hat, etc etc is a lot more representative of the real problem.

It always starts with a synthetic or toy problem but, again, its about selecting a good representative proof-of-concept to be for it to be convincing.

If you showed me the exact same waldo image recognition system and demonstrated it finding waldo on a blank page, it would in fact be the same system, but this demo would not "prove" the concept very convincingly, right? The engine is the same, but the 'proof' in the proof-of-concept is far less persuasive.

120 bytes of binary for a dead simple cpu, likewise, is just not very persuasive. Its a very weak demonstration like using the image recognition system find waldo on a blank page.

It is like demonstrating a system can see toy boats through a 5mm sheet of slightly tinted glass and then talking about how the same tech will be able to help researchers find shipwrecks at the bottom of the ocean, after a century of decay, half buried by silt, ... from a satellite in space.

A proof of concept is a non-production demonstration that provides convincing evidence you'll be able to scale it up and do the ACTUAL thing in the real world that you claim it can do.

This demonstration just isn't convincing. It is too small and simplified a case to justify the grand claims.

Except in this case the real world problems are several orders of magnitude more complicated than the toy problem of reverse engineering binary source of a 120 bytes of code for very simple 40 year old 6502 processor.

You've assembled a lego space ship and then claimed you are qualified to design and build a real one.

tackle (verb)
1. To attempt (but not necessarily succeed at) a task.
2. To knock down so as to impede forward progress.

Either way, I'm sure Claude can tackle modernization of COBOL code.

If there is one thing I don't care for, it is the placement of the power switch. Underneath the machine, in the left rear. As I told an Apple representative, they produce these pretty machines, but must employ an evil genius to place the power switches in bizarre or obscure places.

I honestly can't think of a reason to ever turn off a computer that stays plugged into the wall. I'm sure you have your reasons, but I expect that 99% of buyers press the power button exactly once.

We're weak against it because we're stupid.

"Now you see that evil will always triumph because good is dumb." - D. Helmet

The training takes 10-30 minutes? This isn't training in any sense of the word. It not for the benefit of the worker, nor is it so Citigroup can benefit from their workers using the new tools. The sole purpose of this (and most other corporate "training" programs) is so companies can tick off a checkbox somewhere. Citigroup doesn't care if their employees know or use AI, they only care that they can tell someone (maybe the government, maybe a big customer, maybe their own board) that they're hip to the latest buzzword.

No, they mean "surface". Each of the slots is planed, sanded, and hand-rubbed with the finest tung oil. It puts a beautiful surface on them! Only the best for the C-suite executive meetings!

Primaries help but they aren't a complete solution. First, primary results can be overridden by the party leadership. It's best to think of primaries as a non-binding poll of the electorate. This alone makes primaries a pretty unreliable way to filter candidates.

Second, some states allow voting in either party's primary; there's no declaration of party affiliation and no check to make sure you're a member of the party whose ballot you're marking. So if your own party's nomination is pretty much settled, why not just vote in the other party's primary and pick the least electable candidate? See if you can trick the other party into running an absolute idiot that your guy can easily defeat.

Third, the losers of the primary can still decide to run in the general election under a different party or as an independent. In my example, Lion wins the primary so Tiger runs as neither herbivore or carnivore, but switches to the omnivore party or runs as an independent. This is still going to leech votes away from Lion and put us back in the situation of the minority candidate being elected.

Finally, the biggest advantage that ranked choice voting has that primaries can never have is that it encourages third-party candidates. First past the post almost inevitably devolves into what we have now, two equal parties full of voters who aren't voting *for* their own candidate as much as they are voting *against* the other one. In a close race between two big parties, voting for a third-party is very much not in your best interest. It makes it more likely for your *least* favorite candidate to win. Primaries can't fix that, it's inherent in first past the post voting. Ranked choice voting can bring in third parties as it lets you vote for them without fear of helping the candidate you least like. And who knows? Maybe there are enough others who are voting strategically to keep one party out of office who, if they could actually vote for the party they *like* for a change, could get one of the third-parties elected.

So much there in that short paragraph. Saying Canada shouldn't antagonize Trump is fine, but the problem is there's *nothing* we can do that *won't* antagonize him and nothing we can do to placate him, short of inviting him to come be a king. What can Greenland do to not antagonize him (what can Ukraine do to not antagonize Putin)? See the problem?

Nonsense, it's easy to placate him. It just involves depositing very large sums of money into one of his many offshore accounts. Combine with flattery and gifts (solid gold jets, second-hand peace prizes) and he'll do pretty much anything you want him to. Canada is willfully antagonizing him by not bribing him and kissing his ass well enough, and that's on them.

Wow, you've completely missed the point of ranked choice voting. It's not to make the voter feel good about having been able to vote for the ultimate winner. That's absolutely backwards. It's so we can elect a politician more in line with the desires of the voters.

Super simplistic example: Say you have two major candidates, Lion and Gazelle. A majority of the voters, 60%, would happily vote for Lion. But a third candidate, Tiger, is also running. Tiger is a lot like Lion, but has a few interesting new ideas. Half the Lion voters switch to Tiger. Now Gazelle ends up with 40% of the vote, Lion and Tiger each get 30%. Gazelle wins, even though only a minority of voters actually want a herbivore prey animal in office. 60% would still prefer a big cat, they just have a minor squabble over *which* big cat.

This is the problem ranked choice voting aims to solve. It lets you vote for the candidate you really want in office, without the risk of splitting the vote and losing to the candidate you *least* want to win.

This is why my printer is an aged monk with a calligraphy pen. Even his yellow security dots are lavishly illuminated works of art. The only problem is that his pages-per-day output is in the low single digits. That's more than offset by his vow of silence, though. He never talks back or blasphemes by telling me PC LOAD LETTER.

Not confused at all. Don't blame the voters for the candidates.

"Do better in 2028 or you'll have Vance."

I think even Vance would be a solid upgrade.