This made me realize that the movie really glossed over the development and testing of the capture and containment system for the ghosts.

Amazing that we can create such particles.

I always round Pi once I get to 100 trillion digits.

This is 3.14 times too much.

Claude Cowork does exactly this (accessing the internet is inherent, it can install and then use Stable Diffusion and other open source LLMs).

Yesterday I used Claude Code to incorporate changes to a working document (Word/DOCX) based on a meeting transcript. It added new sections and reorganized the DOCX document, creating a new copy, retaining formatting.

Claude Cowork has direct integrations into PowerPoint and Excel (specific installers), but it doesn't have such for Word documents.

So instead, it uses tools. I just asked it to make the changes, which it did (4 times perfectly, I recorded it for internal purposes and messed up the recording a few times).

Here are the tools it used along with the explanations:

Here's what I used to complete the work:

Document manipulation followed the DOCX skill's unpack/edit/repack workflow. I unpacked the .docx file (which is really a ZIP archive) into its raw XML components, directly edited the word/document.xml file, then repacked everything back into a valid .docx. This preserves all original formatting â" styles, fonts, table layouts, numbering, bookmarks â" because you're working with the same XML the document was built from.

Key tools and techniques:

The Read tool let me examine the source files (transcript, XXXX, process use cases) and read the DOCX skill instructions. Since document.xml was too large to read in one pass, I used offset/limit parameters to read it in sections.

Pandoc converted the .docx to markdown so I could get a readable overview of the full document structure without wrestling with raw XML. I used this both before editing (to understand the layout) and after (to verify the result).

Grep helped me find specific line numbers in the XML â" locating exact insertion points for each edit by searching for heading text, table boundaries, and style markers.

The Edit tool made targeted changes to the XML, inserting new paragraphs, table rows, and sections while matching the surrounding style patterns (w:pStyle, w:rPr, w:numPr, w:cnfStyle attributes) copied from adjacent elements.

Bash handled the unpack/repack scripts (Python-based, provided by the DOCX skill), directory navigation, and the pandoc conversions.

The repack script ran its own validation â" checking paragraph counts and XML well-formedness â" which confirmed everything passed before producing the final .docx.

Consider the timeframes.

Start with Galileo reading and making notes in a book in the 15th century. That

But the book is a REPRINT of a 2ND CENTURY book by Ptolemy. He's look at it 1,300 years after "publication"!

And he's writing in it!

And here we are, hundreds of years later, finding it.

This does sound like a breach of a contract for profit. And that's outside of my comment below, but related.

If an organization creates bets on single individual's decision (this wasn't the case in this case, but it is in many cases...), they should EXPECT that individual to mess with the situation. And that is not insider trading, even if it is wagering with a guarantee to win (it's an investment at that point, not a wager, an investment in one's self through action).

Related question to that.

Should a boxer be able to wager the he/she wins a fight? I would think so, they are wagering on their skill, putting it on the line.

Or make it $1,000. Or higher (I'd say higher, $2.5k, it's commercial, make it hurt and pay).

If a company a "abandoning" 30k+ assets in public areas, it should be retrieving them. It is THEIR problem.

If a tow action is needed, but a human is not there to manage the transaction, the fee hits.

Any commercial vehicle, doesn't have to be autonomous.

Done.

OK, first wife is frozen, that's where it starts.

Man finds 2nd wife, and they both choose to be frozen upon death.

Time passes, until such technology allows the revival of all three.

The love triangle story ensues!

It will be great-great-great-great grandfathered in.

This is an article that makes sense in a mechanical engineering journal. Otherwise, no.

"Oh noes! The finish around the camera bevel on my phone might get scratched!"

I join to watch the 24 Hours of Lemans, over several days. During that month I may binge a show or watch some movies, then done.

Same with Peacock, I join for July to watch the Tour de France. Their other programming is tremendously terrible (and commercial laden), and who has time for that when the tour is 4-6 hours a day... (great background noise)

It's been recovering.

https://www.fishing.news/news/...

I'm sure there won't be knock-off impacts of things like this (the example provided is heating the Seine to 30C from 27C).

Aquatic life has to love a good hot bath as much as I do!

The oceans appear to have a new average high area the last three years:
https://climatereanalyzer.org/...

The meta-of-this reminds me of the Onion article about Starbucks opening up a Starbucks in the bathroom of a Starbucks.

https://theonion.com/new-starb... (1998, I recall reading this in the print edition...)

If you stick you head too far in the sand, you will suffocate.

Chat-GPT says solar is extremely more productive in terms of energy opportunity per acre compared to corn for biofuels.

There are over 29 million acres farmed for biofuel production.

https://arevonenergy.com/news/...

Anyway, this is very unintelligent, all around. And that is polite.

Chat GPT Answer:
Short answer: solar absolutely crushes corn-for-ethanol on an energy-per-acre basisâ"by roughly 35â"45Ã-- each year.

Why (using U.S. medians):

Corn â' ethanol: Typical yields are ~460â"480 gal ethanol/acre/yr (e.g., 462â"484 gal from University of Nebraskaâ"Lincoln extension). Ethanolâ(TM)s energy content is ~76,000 Btu/gal. Thatâ(TM)s about 10.3â"10.8 MWh (thermal) per acre per year.
Farm Energy
CropWatch
Integrated Pest Management

Solar PV: Utility-scale solar delivers about 394â"447 MWh of electricity per acre per year (nationwide median energy density from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory / DOE).
The Department of Energy's Energy.gov
Energy Markets & Policy

Comparison (annual, per acre):

Corn ethanol: ~10â"11 MWh (thermal).
Farm Energy
Integrated Pest Management

Solar PV: ~400â"450 MWh (electricity).
The Department of Energy's Energy.gov
Energy Markets & Policy

Ratio: Solar yields â 35â"45Ã-- more useful energy per acre.

Notes:

This ignores ethanol co-products (animal feed) because the question is about energy per acre.

If you convert to miles driven, the gap widens further because EV drivetrains use electricity much more efficiently than internal-combustion engines burning ethanol. (Same acreage â' far more vehicle miles with solar-powered EVs.)

https://chatgpt.com/share/68a7...