Honestly, most of Trump's actions do not make much sense based on his stated goals. However, they do strongly align with Putin's goals of a weakened USA. I don't know what's up with Trump. I'm sick of guessing his motivations. However, as many have stated..."I don't know if he's a Russian Asset...but if he was, I can't imagine what would be different." The USA has a long history of investing in science and research and most Americans benefitted from the results...directly or indirectly...including the working class which voted for Trump...lots of construction and manufacturing jobs created either directly or indirectly from this research.

His actions are out of line with the needs of the working class, out of line with traditional Republican policies, and I don't see a path to how they improve America in any way. He has great ideas hidden in there, like reciprocal tariffs...but his implementation was so poor and unserious, that they didn't come near to accomplishing the stated goals. I have given up explaining him. I just can't wait for his reign to be over and the one bright side is that he's a narcissist and only interested in his own glory and being treated like a king...so this movement will likely die with him. His kids lack his charisma and from what I can tell, he has not groomed any other successors...he doesn't want to share the spotlight.

Anthropic's recent test of having a AI run a small business suggests that CEOs are safe this year.

Whether it's a "work in progress" or "useful tool" depends on which AI you're talking about, and what task you're considering. Many of them are performing tasks that used to require highly trained experts. Others are doing things where a high error rate is a reasonable tradeoff for a "cheap and fast turn-around". But it's definitely true that for lots of tasks even the best are, at best, a "work in progress. So don't use it for those jobs.

OTOH, figuring out which jobs it can or can't do is a "at this point in time for this system" kind of thing. It's probably best to be relatively conservative. But not to depend on "today's results" being good next month.

Most of those things are either experimental, or only useful in a highly structured environment.

AI is coming, but the current publicly available crop (outside specialty tasks) makes lots of mistakes. So it's only useful in places where those mistakes can be tolerated. Maybe 6 months from now. I rather trust Derek Lowe's analysis of where biochemical AI is currently...and his analysis is "it needs better data!".

One shouldn't blindly trust news stories. There are always slanted. Sometimes you can figure the slant, but even so that markedly increases the size of the error bars.

OTOH, AI *is* changing rapidly. I don't think a linear model is valid, except as a "lower bound". Some folks have pointed to work that China has claimed as "building the technology leading to a fast takeoff". Naturally details aren't available, only general statements. "Distributed training over a large dataset" and "running on a assembly of heterogeneous computers" can mean all sorts of things, but it MIGHT be something impressive (i.e. super-exponential). Or it might not. Most US companies are being relatively close-mouthed about their technologies, and usually only talking (at least publicly) about their capitalization.

Companies change. OTOH, perhaps those that continue to have jobs at Ford will continue to be able to buy a Ford.

I think that either you don't understand AI, or you don't understand how creativity works in people. Probably both.

Current AIs don't have a good selection filter for their creativity. This is a real weakness, that I expect can only be remedied by real world experience. But they *are* creative in the same sense that people are. It's just that a lot of what they create is garbage (although *different* garbage than what most people create).

No, we aren't tracking EVERY object of that kind. (You didn't say all, so that includes the meteor that hits a gopher in his hole.)

Possible? Yeah, I think it's possible. It would be a bit expensive. We're tracking most large objects that cross Earth's orbit. New ones don't appear very often, and we rarely lose track of any. It would take multiple observatories in places outside the plane of the solar system to track all of them, so we've been surprised occasionally by "city killer" meteors, though none of them have actually hit a city. ("city killer" is a bit of an overestimate, but "block buster" would be an understatement.) There have been repeated official statements that "now we know all the really dangerous ones", but even if you believe it, asteroid orbits are subject to change, so you need to keep looking.

So that's settled. Off your meds. Bad idea.

That raises an interesting point. DVDs are encrypted, but for all intents and purposes are DRM-free these days because the code to decrypt them was released decades ago. Bluray is somewhere in the middle, the encryption being crackable but still needing some effort when a new disc with new keys is released.

From a right to repair standpoint, is it allowed to have some encryption that might prevent casual copying or cheating, but is also easily bypassed by repairers and archivists?

My first thought was that it is most likely an attempt to block exploits. The original Switch was exploited via flaws in external interfaces, so locking them down as much as possible is the obvious response.

Poor are better off than ever throughout history.

That's actually why all these "we're all going to die in global boiling if we don't put poorest back into starvation by denying them cheap and reliable energy" mostly stopped at this point. Too much repetition, too many people that heard it all since at least 1980s, and oceans are still not only not boiling off, but humans are better off than ever in our history. And it's getting better.

So the language has been shifting ever since massive reckoning of "we were laughably, insanely wrong in our predictions" that happened around 2020 in IPCC. That's when they had to admit that hard predictions made in 2000 of what should happen by 2020 if any of their predictions are correct turned out so phenomenally wrong when 2020 arrived and we could observe not only none of the catastrophies predicted occurring, but that in many cases what was predicted from 2020 baseline... got better. I.e. desertification was massively pushed back for example. There's now such a massive surplus of Polar Bears, the animal that was supposed to die out due to "destruction of habitat because of AGW" that we had to roll back many of the protection measures as Polar Bears are so numerous and spread so widely that they're actively hunting humans in the Arctic towns and villages now.

So now the language shifted from "we're all going to die in 12 years due to global boiling if we don't do what we the great priests of AGW say" to "catasophe is still happening, it's just so slow that no one can see it. And no, we're making no predictions on when it'll actually happen, so you don't get another 2020 moment, when we predicted a lot of things that should happen by that year, and none of them happen, making us look like what we are: peddlers of lies for personal financial and status gain".

Case described is about parsing CV and application with an AI.

Which means input is both used as a part of an AI prompt, and as a part of actual written application.

I don't think that "lazy managers" are the ones who decide what backend outputs in the first place. That's software architects' job. Lazy manager gets what software architect decides is appropriate for her.