ggm

We called it "slowaris" for a reason. I also loved the ipx.

If a significant number of society cannot buy the goods and services, then what sets the price for the real goods and services outside of AI that we need?

I have no problem with a future without work, if the economists explain how the price/value equation works. There's a solution, but it's not been considered appropriate for some years, since December 1991

Do not give in to forced directives from the WH regarding the toponym of this field. Not that I think the I in AI is justified, but the S in SI is both unjustified and the imposition of one person outside of reality.

I know "what does it look like" is open to mis-interpretation, but I think all of us would like something approximating to artwork which shows what you as a wearer "see" through this mechanism.

I don't worry about the fashion sense of the frames and lenses: I wan't to understand the perceptual effect on reality: Whats the overlay like?

> And let's not exaggerate the complexity of setting up external tape drives, even on Windows/macOS.

Having found a matching Sun Ultra 5 generation drive, I tried to get it to work with a SCSI card, and had .. many many problems. It may be the rubber bands. It may be stiction. it may be ants. It may be me.

I would personally love to de-exaggerate the complexitity: Old hardware is gnarly. I sourced parts, it wasn't working.

Yes. This +++

If they had resisted the temptation to muck around with the GUI and permit people to bring their Vista era email tool into the modern view with less pain, A lot of suspicion around 7->10->11 would have gone.

And look what you did to my kid (Outlook, 10 to 11)

So yes to the memory stuff. But no to "we improved things because our design people needed a kpi"

Guess asking claude to write a 5 line example steganography tool wasn't such a good idea then.

Fair. Nothing is risk free. Move overseas, be more than 10 days away, other sibs have the burdens "we threw out those old unreadable backups Dad had stashed from his time at the computer center".. But your strategy isn't the worst by far. My 3-2-1 has 2 of the 3 in the same physical location. Not good.

These companies charge a megabuck. Maintaining the drives doesn't come cheap. I am (like other ageing former mainframe operatives) the holder of a variety of tape forms, and nobody local wants the hassle of giving me a bitstream, without significant vig. Like thousands.

Recently the computer museum helped recover early 1970s unix tapes. It was a big deal.

Your backup plan is to store the asset in [checks actuarial tables] the place most likely to be withdrawn first?

If you think GPT/LLM detection works on one sentence -- then you have found the point. let me re-factor that and here's the thing..

I think Stephenson misunderstands his metaphor. The "UNIX" of drills is the ratchet/wheel feed mechanism which translates your motion into drill rotation. You crank slow with a lever advantage and it turns fast.

The motor is just the modern upgrade. The Hole Hawg is is his preferred 11/70 or Vax 750 or Sun workstation.

UNIX is the invention of the gearwheel.

Siri, Claude and Karen walk into a bar. Nobody serves them because the robots.txt forbade it.

how can this not refer to emacs?

emacs -> screen -> tmux -> tmux integrated into <terminal app>

appears to be the path.

I guess the fork was "emacs before X" to "emacs after X but we retrofiited some ideas from X into the terminal" -> <the rest is history>

TBM's can fall into a pit of despair. Seattle had a problem with a massive unexpected steel bar down in the pathway. Snowy 2.0 had a problem with grade, with soil and rock density, with water incursion. For Snowy it's beyond 2x cost overrun.

These problems can add years, and in construction, time is money: the cost could balloon. Hard to imagine $16B getting worse but it's not impossible. There's no "reverse gear" on a TBM because the liner it extrudes behind it precludes backing it out. Maybe you get a couple of meters of space in the header to work with. They have hatches so you can clean the teeth on the rotating cutter thingamajig.

Not that this isn't super fun, and interesting, and worth doing, but at this stage in the game, its very early. Across the life of this project a lot of awkward things can happen.

A couple of questions/observations:

1) when people say "destroyed the jigs, tools and spares in 2007" What do they actually mean? Burying things isn't destroying. Putting them in a furnace is destroying. Is it possible that both parts, and tools actually are recoverable e.g. from the seabed? The dimensional stability might be off, but to help reconstruct tools, it's not nothing. Likewise digging up something buried in its packing crate is not rocket science.

2) "that would be ludicrously expensive" doesn't mean much any more. It's not unlike "we can't make a saturn 1 any more because the tools were destroyed and it would be ludicrously expensive to make an F1 engine" -well yes, but thats not impossible, it's just unlikely and expensive. So maybe this is unlikely, expensive but ... has a unicorn sugar daddy?

3) there are craft in all sorts of places. Not just on sticks outside NASA property. I am not a historian or a federal government employee, but I wouldn't think it impossible for people to ask other agencies to let you inside the shell and remove the bits you want, or even ask for it back. The one on a stick in Balboa Park San Diego might have associated boxes of bits-and-bobs..

4) its a titanium alloy. It's temperature and corrosion resistant, noting some things (like chlorine according to the web) are bad for it. It's not made of pure chinesium or balsa wood. Interior surfaces would be in pretty good shape.

True and fair. I committed a dimension sin.

Superannuation in Australia is most typically a not-for-profit mutual fund. So .. yes. Most Australians invest in "industry super" which means the union backed nfp model.

> But it's not sustainable in the medium term.

You think this is the only basis of investment in a large fund? You think they don't make plays which respect this fact, in their risk profile?

Do you think any of the fields above will change their opinions on Graeber based on this kind of re-appraisal of the ground at Göbeklitepe? That's my point. What people think about his work is not an even field, it depends on the context and your stance in things like economics.

being dead doesn't alter how people feel about the work of an academic. If you reject their premises, the extent to which new work validates them or not is often moot. Fred Hoyle was isolated in his lifetime and taken "not seriously" as an astronomer by many because he did a lot of science popularisation and because he held outsider-views on things close to panspermia. Subsequent work which suggests his view that a lot of earths water could come from cometary sources hasn't really significantly altered how people feel about him, because it's grounded in him being irascible, hard and complicated. I would suspect the same is true of Graeber. BTW these people are often adored (rightly so!) by their students because they take time to treat them well, talk to them as people, validate them. It's not that they're inherently bad teachers, bad sources it's that they become isolated inside their fields because they take polemical positions, or are off the main path.

Isolation in the sense of "is not held in high regard in his community" which works dead or alive. I see now that it's more nuanced (from another comment), Graeber was in several communities, and is viewed differently depending on context. Maybe I should have stuck to "is a polarising figure"

no idea. I'm a hands-off investor. I don't ask. I didn't select ethicals either.

To the extent my superannuation fund (401k, ROTH, IRA, hard to know what people call this in other economies) is invested in oil, it goes to .. me.

Super funds in Australia, Canada, the US, are now a massive component of capital investment both in the public market and in private equity. Australia's GDP is 2.5T and the super funds are up to 4T or 5T. Thats $trillion. The super funds are bigger than the GDP of the economy they reside in!

Some funds are just venal machines in the for profit sector. Some are run by boards aligned to union sectors, I am in the tertiary education union backed fund in Australia and it's been in the top 5 performing funds for my entire working lifetime, and given me a comfortable retirement. Most of the injection of funds was from me: I paid between 9 and 12% and on occasion up to 15% of my income into this fund over a 35 year working lifetime. Its accrual is all down to my fund manager, and if they invested in oil and have secured a windfall, at the cost of the future climate risk, thats on me, albiet indirectly. 35 years at the 150+ year 6-7% return in the market, (some say this trend is even older) is several doublings over my working lifetime. Those doublings were driven in .. the market.

Me here, is 75% or more of Australia. It's not some amorphous unknown nasty corporate investor in a sharp suit, its ordinary people. Oh, the article even points out that they pay out on insurance and capital costs rebuilding the exploded ships and production facilities. Guess who makes money? Thats right, the superannuation funds invested in the re-insurance market (Warren Buffett's favourite!) or in construction companies, public or private. So.. thats me again.

The money comes to us. Some of us may be in Saud. Sure. The Saudi state pays a huge stipend to its citizens. Some of us may be in Norway. That national investment fund is amazing. Why do you think Norway is now almost completely cut over to private EV drivers?

I'd love to ideate the hateful oil companies as the victors here but the thing is, they don't simply act like Smaug and sit on a pile of gold coins. Thats not held to be useful by them and their peers. They do shave off FAR TOO MUCH to swan about in those aforementioned sharp suits, but enough of the fat trickles into my hands, to keep me in the manner to which I am accustomed, as a retiree.

I'm as complicit, and so are "you" for many people reading this.

He has an exterior model in ground truth: you take a pig, you anaesthetise it and isolate an organ, and you measure flow rate in a live subject.

When the model is shown to be within tolerance of what you can measure in the accepted standard methods right now, you can move over with confidence.

> At the bottom of this new hierarchy are the grandfathered iPhones. Apple boasts that iOS 27 supports legacy devices all the way back to the iPhone 11. But if you own a standard iPhone 15 or older, you get optimizations, not new features. Look past the faster app launches, and you'll realize your phone isn’t getting smarter. You are locked out of the Siri AI workspace.

Article pinpoints exactly which is the latest version of tech many people will now preference, because "the man" can't "stick it" on the phone.

If you don't want smarts, stick to an iPhone 15 for now.

I posit this represents cost shifting, not actual saving: opex as salary converts to opex and capex as AI, and the "rent" extracted by the proponents of AI is priced to be competitive, but it's natural place is not significantly below the pay for brains because thats counter-productive.

Remember, estimates of revenue growth needed to sustain the model are 80%, Which will be impossible without pricing this far higher than people might think on the current cost per token.

Quite a few "dis-intermediation" changes show this behaviour. We do indeed now have a paperless office, as presaged by the dawn of the computer. We didn't reduce the cost of "paperwork" significantly as a result. We just shifted it into various externalities which turn out to be costly.

The paper measures productivity. There is a tendency to try to make this equate to direct labour savings, even if it's not explicit.

The paper is maths heavy. Economists don't like making qualitative statements when quant is there. Arguing for a 3.6% rise in GDP is bold. I think they haven't measured counterfactual outcomes like the inflationary effects of the rise in costs of computing inputs across the economy, or the cost of electricity, or the cost effects on other industries like construction sector as hyperscalers hoover up the inputs.

I think it's possible they're right. I'm not numerically minded, can't really fathom the inputs but they do make big claims of being responsive to live market data and trends which I guess is interesting. If the approach is right for tendency if not scale, then thats something useful.

A legitimate critique of my comment includes "you're not qualified to comment"

What I read from this is that their model lies within +/- 2 degrees most of the time. I assume therefore it's adjusted to reflect observations, and thats the error limit they set as a target.

I don't think this is "bad" per se.

A fictionalised account not entirely dissimilar to this kind of story is buried in "What's bred in the bone" (1985) by the Canadian author Robertson Davies. It's not a direct lift, but you'd see the resonances.

When you say "psyops" who is funding this purported campaign and who is organising it?