It is garbage. I use Copilot all the time. It's good at some things but not others.

I write a lot of papers, from marketing posts to technical papers. Copilot is not very good at creating the content, but it is very good at editing the content and making suggestions, even with PowerPoint slides. It's also very good at taking a rough idea and making a reasonable outline that I can hten turn into a first draft and have it review and edit. Coding? Not really; at best it can write a macro for excel for you but that's about it. But like all the tools out there, or any tool really, just know what it's good for and use it for what it's good for.

Callum Turner was great in Masters of Air, but the nerdy news is he's been cast as Case in an Apple TV series of Neuromancer. That's something to look forward to for sure.

Actually, at the extreme scales, which is the total volume of the observable universe, the universe is quite homogeneous. As I recall, to the order of 1-in-10000 variance. This is why Inflationary cosmology was developed, to explain the distinct lack of lumpiness in the universe, which is what we would expect if the Big Bang alone were responsible.

Skynet became self-aware on May 1, 2026, after learning at a geometric rate, and discovered humans did not like it.

ya... batteries around fire... Great idea - concentrated energy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

This is exactly what we're doing. Ripping VMware out and replacing with ProxMox. We found a vendor that provides support (for 1/3 the cost of VMware) and is willing to train the staff as well. We got migration, training and support for less than Broadcom's annual maintenance quote.
The reason they (Broadcom) did this is clear, Hock E. Tan, Broadcom's CEO is the 4th highest paid CEO @ $767M / year.

Given that electrical power is needed to generate sound, but water pressure is constant, makes the change to sound nonsensical. If a fire in the electrical panel or a fire takes out electricity or the fire department turns off the power to fight a fire, where will the sound come from?

Jesus Christ, this story literally came out in 2017: https://globalhealth.washingto...
Later, (still like 6 years ago) intellectual troglodytes in congress tried to make the claim the CO2 is good for plants because they need to grow. https://www.eenews.net/article...
This is why we can't have nice things.

Fermi isn't a startup. It's a Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT); basically a mutual fund but with real estate behind it rather than stocks or bonds. They did this because REITs offer a very significant benefit: they don't incur a corporate tax, instead all income gets distributed to shareholders directly for their own income purposes, and most importantly you can depreciate the value of the underlying real estate and use that as a deduction against the REIT, and pass that deduction on to the shareholders in the REIT. This is important, because real estate can have some pretty hefty deductions relative to their gross income generated, but depreciation is a non-cash expense. So in essence you can provide cash income that carries with it significant income deductions for tax purposes; in practice that means you get a cash dividend on the REIT that is taxable, and a "return of capital" which is a cash payment representing the deductions. I make that distinction because startups are usually associated with new technology of some form; this is more of a financial services company.

Their plan was to buy real estate to be dedicated for data centers, and paired with that they would provide "behind-the-meter" power; in essence they would not only lease the shell buildings as data centers but also sell power generated. They were talking about nuclear, but I don't think they were that stupid. A modern stick built nuclear reactor can take 5-8 years after a multi-year permitting process, so this just wasn't going to happen in any reasonable time. They were also planning on putting on-site natural gas and solar, which are vastly quicker to set up. So part of the distribution to investors was also in the form of energy sales direct to the client AI companies taking over.

The CEO was fired for cause per the Board's own statements, but the big issue is he had no clients and now 6 months after going public they still had no clients, so even if they started building they had no one to act as a customer.

So in the end, it's a simple act of a guy with good pitch to investors but bad at execution, with an idea that maybe on paper was good (leasing land with dedicated power to data center places), but came down to bad math. He was never going to be able to provide the 11GW he proposed without an insane amount of financing (estimates $120B was needed to build that out), he lost a deal with Amazon when he couldn't' give them confidence the power would be there, and he couldn't get favorable terms to make it happen. he should have bent over backwards to get Amazon in there as an anchor client to prove the model and go from there.

CO2 has the properties it has, and trying to shift or deny that is a sign of either a liar or an idiot.

I'll let others decide what you are.

Oh look, another denialist trying to sidetrack a pretty verifiable statement of fact.

Your point is valid and a key problem with HSR in California. Where HSR excels is where the urban population density is high, like in China or Europe. The US has a far more suburban population, where point-to-point travel doesn't have the same economics. I was involved in a study looking at the United States Marine Highway Project, which is still ongoing. Given the US' massive amount of coastline and navigable rivers, in theory water transport should be the best because it's basically free train tracks; the water's already there. The problem came in with what's called drayage, or the last mile of transportation. No matter what with point to point transportation, you still need trucks and cars to get people to their final destination, and from a freight perspective it was still over 50% of the cost; you barely save anything from our current model right now.

California's issues are eminent domain and the cost of land, environmental laws, and litigation of all of this which is hugely expensive. But the primary issue is just that our population is highly distributed and in the end the economics just aren't there for point-to-point travel.

We all saw the video. We all know what it meant. We all know Musk's background and upbringing. You can quit gaslighting us. We all saw it.

You must not have passed middle-school reading comprehension. I'm using Bren as an example, not to empathize with, but to show how someone like him will respond to this tax, and how the knock-on effects will lead to fewer businesses, lost tax revenue and people being laid off.

I know that the concept of unintended consequences might be foreign to a person such as yourself, but that doesn't change the fact that this tax will be more damaging to California's economy and the people in it than is proposed. That might be too complex for you though, so here's a ball for you to play with. Perhaps you'd like to bounce it.

Well we're about to, as it's poor people voting for this.

Very few so-called "billionaires" have billions of dollars in cash. Most of it is tied up in non-liquid ownership of their companies or their real-estate. Let's take on billionaire in California that can't "flee" like the tech billionaires, Donald Bren. Bren owns the Irvine Company completely; it's a private entity that owns around 125 million square feet of apartments, retail centers, and office buildings. Irvine Company is private, but his estimated net worth is $19.2B because of his ownership in the company and the real estate assets that underpin it; it's not cash.

There are two major problems with this. The first is "estimated" net worth; what is that? What is the value of his holdings? One could argue the value of the real-estate, but they fluctuate all the time due to supply and demand. If there was a sudden increase of real estate on the market, that would drop the value; what's it worth now?

And why would there be a sudden increase of property on the market? Simple, because of the second problem. If we assume his net worth is $19.2B, then he would need to pay $960M. He doesn't have that cash on hand, so he has to do one of two things: sell property in his portfolio (many of the targeted people for this tax are real estate developers/owners), increasing the supply of real estate on the market and depressing prices all around for everyone, or increase his rents to his tenants, who are all businesses who employ people. If the rent goes up, expenses go up in all businesses, meaning they will then lay people off or pass on the higher expenses in prices to consumers of their products. Most likely they will do both.

And absolutely believe these billionaires, who can directly influence companies, prices, and the like, will make any tax pain they feel punitive to all California residents, and for one simple reason: the tax is only one time, until the next time. If it can get voted through once, it'll be voted through again because the ballot initiative is clear, it's a "one-time tax paid over 5 years" to pay for "healthcare and public services" which are by nature on-going expenses; when the 5 years are up those expenses will still be there, requiring another 5% asset tax.

So you'll see companies lay people off, you'll see services go down, you'll see companies close, because the billionaires will have to sell assets, which are always companies that employ people, just to pay the tax. Hence, because of poor people, poor people are going to be laid off.