Any article that mentions the decline of teen fertility as a problem is a propaganda piece. Its authors are awful human beings and deserve to rot in hell for all eternity.

In 2026, teens should not ever be getting pregnant. We don't live in that world any longer. Whoever that bothers needs to rethink their life choices.

From what the SWEs tell me, they expect to be fired within 2 years anyway, they're just cashing in the stupid monery paycheck while they can.

What I'd love to know is the levels of shadow IT people are going through.

It sounds slow, expensive, and invasive.

Obviously we're in a world where young people do not know how to communicate via messaging systems, online web apps and email. They need to be physically sitting on a file cabinet in my cube while I slam obscure commands into a terminal and swear semi-silently at every typo.

I don't know who writes all this shit, but my experience is that our new hires have less desire to be in an office, in a strange city far from home, than I do.

Is this really a top performing game device, or just a thin client to sell cloud SAAS crap? I'm not always attached to the internet and I'm not interested in renting my compute.

I didn't take the Swiss for being xenophobic, until the public voted in a referendum banning minarets and running anti-niqab ads to single out minorities.

Don't say "religion" when you only mean Christianity. Some religions actually do offer proofs.

Almost all mosques are open to the public and welcoming. If they tried it they'd be told to stop running, would they like to sit down and have some tea?

I diddled some children, so you're fired.

Let's hope Oracle never buys them out. They'll assert ownership over dBase, defeature it, try to sue anyone who targets it and replace it in the storyline.

I await the news that Google has the keys to this and use it for.

You're unlikely to hear this news without either another Snowden level leak, or a very long, drawn out legal battle.

Anyway, mayhem the billionaires will make their own slaves.

The problem here is that developers can take responsibility for the action while AI can not. Humans do make mistakes and that's ok; best practice is not to just can employees for messing up. Once is a mistake. Twice is an HR event. When someone does something dumb we forgive but we also insist that meaningful steps are taken to prevent that problem in the future. AI can't really take those steps because AI can't be accountable for "don't do it again." Taking down production because you dropped a table once is forgivable. Taking it down twice for the same reason is a different matter.

The developer can be accountable. And if HR fails to hold them to account for it, HR is accountable. And if HR isn't held accountable, leadership is. And if leadership isn't held accountable, the board is. And if the board isn't held accountable, the stockholders have some hard decisions to make. And if they choose not to make them than it wasn't really that big a deal, was it?

But with an AI the option is "we stop using AI" or "we live with the result."

1) Convince us it tastes the same.
2) Obviouslty this threatens ranchers everywhere and they're not going to go quietly

Everyone is so excited about not having to pay software engineers to write code that they've forgotten what engineers actually do. It's less common in the software world but go find a civil engineer or an electrical engineer or an aerospace engineer and follow them around for a week.

At some point, there's going to be a document in front of them laying out how something is going to be built and they're going to be asked to approve it. And when they do that they're taking responsibility for the design. If it falls down, if it catches on fire, or if it crashes into the mountains and kills people, they're the name on the form saying that won't happen. They're responsible.

Claude 4.5 Opus is very impressive, but if it writes a software application that kills people it can't take responsibility. It can't be punished. It can't even really be sued.

I just don't see how we, as a society, can trust fundamentally unaccountable entities to build systems that can do real harm if they go wrong. I suppose the alternative is that Anthropic accepts full legal liability for everything its models do. Their unwillingness to make that move tells you all you probably need to know about their own internal confidence in those models.