hackeraccount

Ah NEC. There's a name I haven't heard in a long time. I used to have an NEC monitor.

I think it's somewhere in the process it was asked "what's the most compelling written text?" The answer was things from great speeches "Ask not what you ..." and so on.

And that really is great and compelling. However. Great and compelling is not what I'm looking for when my question is, "Systemd-networkd is pulling an ip address for a bonded interface that only exist as a 802.1Q trunk. How do I make it stop that?"

What you're saying is exactly the question isn't it? I've seen polling on opposition to data centers and "I hate AI" isn't a majority reason. It's more like 15%.

The reasons people give are higher electric bills, water shortages, and environmental damage.

I think that those reasons are spurious but I also think that for some issues facts don't make much difference. People will have opinions about things that are totally at odds with facts.

Do they? I mean so much of learning (certainly of school) is along the lines of "this is the way it is, don't worry about first principles just accept this"

If there's learning how to think stuff going on I'm not sure I want the schools doing that, it seems more like the job of parents.

Imagine if you had! You might be the 100X JavaScript writer.

More seriously everyone knows there are patterns that keep repeating themselves from low level on up. The more exposure you get the better you get at understanding them. I think there's a reasonable question about if the best methodology for understanding is to see the same thing repeatedly (that is just study JavaScript) or to see multiple variations on the same thing (that is learn the entire stack imperfectly).

The counter to this in my mind is that learning for it's own sake is often imperfect. If I know I'm learning about semiconductors simply to get on to learning Assembly and then JavaScript (my actual goal) I'll retain less then if the initial steps are the goal itself.

Pedagogy is a tricky thing.

Some of my best friends are lactose.

That Ars these days. They want attention and this is the way their audience wants them to do it.

Personally I'm a bit bummed out about it because there's less that I want to read and the articles make the comment section... well, like the articles. I shouldn't complain though - someone took note of where the traffic was and it wasn't people like me. Also I still visit the site, it just seems like there's for me.

Meta can't literally force this on people.

The idea that looking around would instantiate ads sounds pretty bad. (though the devil's advocate position would be - compare that world to the one we live in today where the ads are viewable to everyone all the time). For that to happen Meta couldn't force people to buy it, the product would have to be so compelling that people wanted it despite that. Think about how good that product would need be?

I read about an experiment with pigeons. The birds were given a target. For one iteration if a bird pecked a target it would get a piece of corn. For another it got nothing and for a third... sometimes it would get piece of corn and sometimes it would get nothing.

Tech for me is that third variation. Sometimes you get nothing and sometimes it totally delivers (and more!) on what it promises. This is as a user and even as a provider. You take various bits and bobs and suddenly with a slightly clever idea and you've got something that's more then the sum of the parts. Sometimes. Other times it just never comes together.

I'm not sure if that makes me happy or sad. Bit of both I suppose but I keep going back to the well because you never know.

They aren't. It's still being looked into.

Sample size of 1 but I tend to think something like Prokaryotes is common. I'd bet money that it either did or does exist on Mars. Eukaryotes will be much much less common for reasons that I do not understand and we'll never find intelligent life (or it won't find us) because the distances are too great and the probabilities too small.

> More productivity means less labour per productive cycle, hence less profit.

Rising productivity either means more stuff or lower prices.

How would that work? I'm a generous guy, I like to help people. I'm also a psychopath who likes to kill people.

Kind of like Robin Hood but slightly crazier I go around murdering people who have just taken out policies to help out their beneficiaries.

I mean, it's true isn't it? I guess it's the rare firefighter who unintentionally starts a fire but I guess it's a different game.

Wanna bet?

It also misunderstands that nature of Musk's fortune. He's not Scrooge McDuck and they pretend he is. Sell SpaceX at a fire sale. What's it worth? A lot less then it is now. Who would buy it? Poor people? Somehow I don't think so.

Musk is a golden goose and there are people who think the best move is to cut him in half and get at all the gold inside.

You work and toil and earn bread, and I'll eat it.

Disappointing there's not a Proposal E "require use of LLM's by contributors"

No. There are questions you can ask but that's not it. Don't be political in a way that's toxic to half the country - be political in a way that's toxic to the entire country. I'll leave what those lines of inquiry would be as an open exercise.

If prices go up there aren't lines. You get lines when demand goes up and supply doesn't or supply goes down and demand doesn't follow. Either way the "fix" is either to raise prices or have lines.

When it comes to people's take on AI it reminds me of nothing so much as the way people reacted to the introduction of computers in the 1950's and 60's.

I'm not quite clear what lesson there is to be learned from that though.

You're like a smarter more articulate version of me.

I used to use Sway - switched to hyperland very briefly and it was so busy and a pain to work with.

Niri on the other hand is as complicated as I want it to be.

This.

I still think AI is at root at UI improvement for working with computers. It's an equivalent to the general move of command line interaction to WIMP.

Freaking out over this seems like nothing to me so much as that Tracy/Hepburn movie ... Desk Set.

Hey! I think I saw you on Ars. Or maybe someone there copied and pasted this?

I dropped out of Kindergarten to make snail teeth powered AI!

So the argument is that any piece of regulation will always lead to a positive outcome?

How is that possible?

Just because I'm buying something for someone other then myself it doesn't follow that I don't care how the money is spent. If my tax dollars are wasted it's no comfort to tell myself that the money would have been spent by someone else for someone else in any case.

I don't think sovereignty works that way.

decade+ is not really that long, is it? Say you're correct in that time frame. If you put money in now to a venture that seems uncertain then in 5 years it's going to seem much less uncertain - and so the investment will be worth that much more.

I think there's an oft repeated view that markets only look to the next quarter. That's not really true. Markets (or people) are willing to go in on long term investments as long as they believe they understand the uncertainty. Which leads to crazy 2nd and 3rd order speculation (I think you think that they think...)

Personally putting money into space based datacenters seems crazy to me currently but in a couple of years it'll be more clear as to just how crazy this is. At which point the opportunity (and risk) will be gone one way or the other.

How does this get them a government contract?