They did, but it's never too late to cheapen how they're current stuff is produced.

Still, I think they know all too well that mainframe is "stuck" doing it the way they always have done it.

If you are diabetic, sure. Otherwise, you obviously haven't known anyone who has tried to get this as a weight control solution and deal with insurance that absolutely doesn't want to pay for that stuff.

Here's the thing, some folks do the discipline and keep a healthy weight, but they are basically always feeling hunger. Some people don't feel it but some people are having to constantly fight sensation of hunger, with a respite of a little bit after a meal, and almost never feeling 'full'.

If we had something to tame the rather depressive experience of constantly denying one's hunger because you know in your mind that you got the nutrition and caloric intake you need, but your body wants to eat your way to obesity.

If you can't figure out for yourself what's wrong with ordering large numbers of men to their deaths, then I won't be able to explain it to you.

They could take that one step further: once your computer has compiled the appropriate shader for its particular combination of hardware/driver/etc, the game could upload that particular shader to a repository, so that the next install with the exact same combination of conditions could just download it instead of having to duplicate the work. I imagine there are a lot of people out there running functionally identical systems that would benefit.

I suppose they don't do that because they don't trust people not to repurpose the mechanism as a malware vector, or something.

They don't "fly" or "sail", what spacecraft do is "fall" there. Except for the bit of time they use their engines.

He's probably not scared enough. Anyone old enough to remember Vietnam knows how the song goes from here. "We must throw another batch of American men into the meat grinder, otherwise the lives of the previous batch will have been sacrificed in vain", and repeat ad infinitum.

Problem is that the only viable market for mainframe are current mainframe customers, who are so change averse that if you even hint at breaking compatibility they will be triggered to start evaluating *all* their options if they are faced with a potential migration anyway.

IBM may love the idea of shuttering their in-house stuff in favor of massively cheap commodity stuff, but they would absolutely no longer command mainframe margins.

(in the margins)
Turn to page 122
Turn to page 65
Turn to page 89
Turn to page 44
Turn to page 12
Turn to page 56
Turn to page 35
Turn to page 55
Turn to page 77
Turn to page 130
Turn to page 120
Turn to page 110
Thank you for letting me waste your time.

Turning to AIs for a ruling on who is human and who is not is an interesting inversion of the Turing test.

Yea I was wondering about this. I pretty clearly saw that some (all?) of the Fidelity funds that a 401K can invest in include bitcoins as part of the portfolio. So what exactly is new?

But electric cars are WOKE! Seems like a massive failure by Trump.

You assume that a standards document exists and is also sufficiently specific for all scenarios. Other than some very fundamental IETF stuff have I seen a standards document that pretty much covers the scope specifically. Even more severely, "specifications" for an internal project have been so traditionally bad, a whole methodology cropped up basically saying that getting specifications that specifically correct is a waste of time because during the coding it will turn out to not be workable.

Yes, it can write hundreds of tests, but if the same mediocre engine that can't code it right is also generating tests, the tests will be mediocre. Leading to bizarre things like a test case to make sure '1234' comes back as 'abcd' and the function just always returns the fixed string 'abcd' and passes the test because it decided to make a test and pass it instead of trying to implement the logic. I have seen people almost superstitiously add to a prompt "and test everything to make sure it's correct" and declare "that'll fix the problems". The superstitious prompting is a big problem in my mind, that people think they add a magic phrase and suddenly the LLM won't make the mistakes LLMs tend to make. I have seen people take an LLM at their word when the LLM "promises" to not make a specific mistake, and then confounded the first time they hit the LLM making the mistake anyway. "It specifically said it wouldn't do that!", it doesn't understand promises, the thing just will generate the 'consistent' followup to a demand for a promise which is text indicating making the promise.

Take the experiment where they took Opus 4.6 and made it produce a C compiler. To do so, the guy at Anthropic said point blank he had to invest a great deal of effort in a test harness, that the process needed an already working gcc to use as a reference on top of that, and specified the end game as a bootable, compiled kernel. Even then he had to intervene to fix it and it couldn't do the whole thing and when people reviewed the published result, it failed to compile other valid code and managed to compile things that shouldn't have been compilable. This is Anthropic with their best model doing a silly stunt to create a knock off of an existing open source project with full access to said project and source code and *still* it being a lot of human work for mediocre output.

Yes, it has utility, but there's a lot of people overestimating capabilities and underestimating risks and it's hard for the non-technical decision makers to tell the difference until much further down the line. Mileage varies greatly depending on the nature of the task at hand as to whether LLM is barely useful at all or it can credibly almost generate the whole thing.

It's bad for your health if you care about the work. It might be less bad if you just don't give a damn how crappy the output is or if it's at all useful or not.

It could be that. What it definitely was, though, is that Sony thought they could make more money selling to data centers than to the public.