graeme

It's not clear to me from this announcement. The articles make it sound like all searches now go to ai mode and no more blue links.

But Google's description seems more minimal, like easier to get to ai mode, search box can expand intelligently based on input. Is there any clearer description of the magnitude of the change?

I am confident that if a gold mine existed, and their wholesale purchaser went bankrupt, someone else would buy the gold.

That doesn't change the fact that there isn't enough demand for canned peaches. If there were enough demand for peaches the farmers would sell the peaches, rather than destroy the peach trees.

>Another chilling aspect of drone warfare is that you don't get to surrender. No prisoners are taken.

This isn't true, you can surrender and there are videos of people doing so.

You've perhaps seen videos of drones loitering, waiting a bit, and then moving in when the soldier does nothing. This is often waiting for a surrender sign.

Normally the soldier in these videos is Russian. Why don't they surrender? First they may be shot by their own side if they try to follow the drone.

Second, Russian soldiers have generally been recruited with large bonuses and even larger bonuses paid out in the event of their death, paid to their families. However, if they try to surrender and are shot for desertion there is no payout. Whereas if they stay still and die the Russian government gives their family money.

It doesn't generate power by burning carbon and is a grid replacement for carbon sources. Grid cost rise sharply on 100% solar.

Taking china as an example they currently build solar, coal and nuclear. No country is building only solar/batteries.

Further if we build more nuclear we'd be better at it and it would be cheaper.

You're arguing that the action had some positive effects and therefore it was ROI positive. That doesn't remotely follow.

And most companies did NOT make the choice to be as accessible as Apple, which rebuts your theory that this was done only for the ROI.

Effectively you're so cynical that there's nothing Tim Cook could say or do that would convince you he was ever acting sincerely. It is comfortable to blame and rage but it is hardly good analysis.

Texas zoning isn't nearly as permissive as Japan's. Setbacks are a big added requirement. Minimum parking requirements too though that is changing.

But it would not be legal to build japanese neighbourhoods in Texas.

That is sadly the original title but the article is much better than the title. Authors don't get to write their own headlines.

The thing about arguments like this is they're usually used in service of blocking housing. As in we shouldn't do what Austin did because it won't fully solve the problem. We should instead stick with the status quo, which gets much worse than Austin.

Thank you! Sounds like a fantastic setup. Are the claude code agents acting autonomously from any trigger conditions or is this all manual work with them? And how do you manage write permissions for documents amongst team members/agents, presumably multiple people have access to this system?

(Not OP, but have been looking into setting up a system for a similar use case)

Fantastic advice

>intervening Siria for protecting some jew friendly faction inside Siria, a la Russia protecting russiansnin Ukraine

It was the Druze and they were actually being killed.

"The friend of my enemy deserves to die" is not an attitude you have to adopt, even if you disagree with the Israeli response to the killings.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_2025_massacres_of_Syrian...

I can say how this worked for books. Used to be Amazon didn't enforce their pricing policy. So a bookseller could price their book's list price lower on a different site than on amazon. Amazon would discount to match, but pay the bookseller based on the list price.

It was effectively a way to get an excess commission out of amazon if you printed through their printing arm, Createspace/KDP. Not sure if this worked the same for non print on demand books but if you printed through createspace you could set a higher list price and get royalties that were about 100% of the actual sale price.

No idea if the same mechanic is in play with the FBA rules but it seems very plausible to me that the largest impact is has is closing exploits like this.

That doesn't mean it doesn't also entrench market position, raise a few prices at the margin etc but it's very easy to miss the potential for gaming rules, legally, unless you're actively in the system. If an incentive is there the market incentive will be to use it.

Previously you could see which files Claude was reading. If it got the totally wrong context you could interrupt and redirect it.

Since it's just reading at that stage there's no tracked changes.

Historically in a lot of niches such as search marketing etc, people would not name their successful projects because the barrier to entry is low.

It someone can use AI to make a $50,000/year project in three months, then someone else can also do so.

Obviously some people hype and lie. But also obviously some people DID succeed at SEO/Affiliate marketing/dropshipping etc. AI resembled those areas in that the entry barrier is low.

To get actual reports you often need to look to open source. Simon Willison details how he used it extensively and he has real projects. And here Mitchell Hashimoto, creator of Ghostty, details how he uses it: https://mitchellh.com/writing/my-ai-adoption-journey

Update: OP posted their own project however. Looks nice!

Millions of people around the world looked at the CIA world factbook. It was useful. It gives you a warm feeling about the USA and the CIA. Warm feelings are useful.

If you deny this argument do you claim:

1. No one used it or it wasn't useful, or

2. They used it robotically and formed no feelings, or

3. It is of absolutely no use to have people like your organization or country.

The problem with this reasoning is it requires assuming that companies do things for no reason.

However possible it was to do this work in the past, it is now much easier to do it. When something is easier it happens more often.

No one is arguing it was impossible to do before. There's a lot of complexity and management attention and testing and programmer costs involved in building something in house such that you need a very obvious ROI before you attempt it especially since in house efforts can fail.

That's not outrageous as a car price once you add insurance, maintenance, taxes, parking, license fee, cleaning, etc

Along with any interest on the purchase or foregone investment gains. You can use a true cost of ownership calculator here.

https://www.edmunds.com/honda/accord/2022/cost-to-own/?style...

They're describing a situation of liability, not mere damage. If yor bicycle is hit you didn't do anything wrong.

If you run into someone on your bike and are at fault then you generally would be liable.

They're talking about the hypothetical where you're on your bike, which was sold as an autobomous bike and the bike manufacturer's software fully drives the bike, and it runs into someone and is at fault.

Instagram has more users than Twitter, but generates no or few HN posts. Something can be used without generating any notable news or information.

I've tried threads. Moderately engaging. Took nothing from it. Twitter has a HN like quality where there's a lot that's unimportant and occasionally you see something you'd see nowhere else.

Human greed has existed as long as humans have existed.

"Grr greed" is an easy answer that's popular these days but by itself it can't explain a change as it's a constant factor in us as a species.

The OP said new carbon sources are not competitive.

ANY investment is by definition creating capacity that would not be there without the investment. If carbon were not competitive it would not get investment.

If you sum up all of the carbon and compare to renewables in the chart there's more new carbon investment annually globally than renewables. (Comparing the dark lines vs the green line)

Also this is ignoring "low emission fuels", which are still carbon sources, natural gas and the like.

If you check the chart "Global electricity generation of zero-carbon sources vs. fossil fuels, 2000-2024" you can see that carbon sources were at an all time high in 2024. Growing slower is still growing.

We ought to be shrinking these to zero. I'm very glad to see solar and wind growing but my point is nuclear is worth supporting as an non-carbon energy source that could replace some of this carbon load because of its baseload characteristics.

Could you please provide comparable figured of EROI for solar vs Nuclear?

For a useful comparison you have to compare both sides, not give a stat in isolation and assert it is worse without comparing.

Highly misleading stat. That's referring to capacity expansion, not new construction.

Prior energy assets go offline and are replaced each year. The report you cite is discounting all of that, looking only at expansion above the baseline, then taking total renewable construction and calcuating renewable total construction's share of expansion. Apples to oranges.

If you look at the chart in your own link you'll see that carbon construction investment exceeds renewables still.

Chart: "Annual energy investment by selected country and region, 2015 and 2025"

I would love for what you say to be true but it just isn't, even by that agency's own stats.

What's wrong with steam?

It's better than carbon. And solar + battery requires more carbon to produce than nuclear energy as there's a lot of mining and physical construction involved + you must overbuild to supply power or rely on non solar sources.

All for building solar. Do not understand the constant need to denigrate nuclear in favour of carbon sources while doing so.

(If carbon sources were at zero this would be a different conversation)

>We know how to build nuclear, we don't do it because its too expensive.

Refusing to build nuclear for decades makes it more expensive. If we start actually building reactors the cost will come down.

>the current Storage + Renewable pricing is so crazy good, that whatever you do with nuclear will just not be able to compete.

I would find this more persuasive if there were no new investment in carbon sources, but carbon sources have clearly remained competitive with batteries + solar, and global carbon emissions remain at an all time high. There's demand for baseload energy.

Hadn't heard that angle, found this article worth a read. Apparently few patients had a second evaluation.

https://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle/2165181/allier-marrero-...

It clearly was if you look at forward trends. In his podcast mentioned revenue was going down by a fixed amount per month, meaning an increasing percentage per month, and they had crossed the line to six months of runway before layoffs.

With layoffs they can meet costs but that might be true if the revenue decline trend keeps going for 18 months or so.

There might be a business model for Tailwind here. I was looking at buying Tailwind Plus after reading this news, and my first question was how to get AI to use it efficiently.

That's not quite correct. There's a lot of NIMBY pressure in cities, where land is scarce and there's lots of people to attend planning meetings to block building.

However, if you want to build a datacenter, you don't need to build it in downtown Manhattan. You can build it anywhere, and some places make it easy to build data centers.

By definition local restrictions apply locally. If you want more housing in Manhattan then Manhattan nimbyism really matters. But if you want to build a data center somewhere you have a lot of options. There's no nationwide vote on allowing datacenter construction.