Zafira

I believe the America was essentially a testbed for the United States. They were both amazing ships designed by William Francis Gibbs and the United States was specifically designed with conversion to a troopship in mind, if necessary. Its propulsion system was classified as a state secret for a time and there are pictures of models shown to the public early on where everything below the waterline was covered up.

> [T]he nation’s first, fully consolidated city-county government.

This feels really tortured. Their argument is that they can say this because “Metropolitan government is a consolidation of two governments rather than the county taking over the city or the city taking over the county government.”

But, multiple cities have consolidated city/county governments. San Francisco is one such example.

We can only speculate, but it would not be surprising if someone was hunting for a reason to get rid of them and thought this was a good excuse. Personally, I don’t think this is a good excuse and while we don’t have all the facts, it sounds like Netflix conceding the therapy factored into the dismissal is probably something they will very much regret admitting to on the record.

You need to think about this more creatively.

What we are talking about is entirely based on this one term in the announcement: run-rate revenue. This is a meaningless term just like how “clinically proven” for vitamins is a way for the companies to use weasel words to imply something without truly being able to back it up, but also not actually lying. There is no legal definition of “clinically proven” so, what exactly would you sue them for? The same thing is true for run-rate revenue. They can cherry pick numbers to use to generate the run-rate revenue value and they are not lying, but this isn’t exactly honest either. We have no transparency and run-rate revenue is not an accounting term.

This goes back to my entire point, this is a vibe. This announcement does not provide much in the way of substance, so a reader will take it to say whatever they want.

Personally, I'm just exhausted. They are not obligated to be truthful here, so the entire thing is interpreted based on vibes. If you are an AI booster, this is proof that the demand is there; if you aren't you're baffled at where these numbers are coming from.

The amount of caveats and vibes that this article is powered by could run New York City for a decade.

This is a sincerely dishonest take to try and avoid responsibility for participating in something deeply unethical and scammy. If this were about evidence in a criminal trial, I would start opining about a poisoned tree.

The sad thing is that it often works.

Just look at how people view Andrew Carnegie now. After his reputation was sullied by his company’s behavior in the Homestead Strike, his philanthropy was done, in-part, to try and restore his reputation.

> he took the money and refused to stay bribed so the coin tanked.

I don’t think he refuse to stay bribed. I think he did what was asked and they executed a rug pull. He is extraordinarily honest and flippant about it. [0]

> And with that disclaimer out of the way, I must reiterate my sincere regrets to the CT/BAGS crowd, who so generously funded me to the tune of just shy of $300k last week on bags.fm. That money was hard to duck, and the funds are deeply appreciated. They will help Gas Town be a big success this year. But Gas Town itself needs my full attention; between that and Beads it’s a wonder I get anything done at all.

> So I had to step back from the community. I do find it amazing how they band together, dissenting voices rolling around like a big Katamari Damacy ball, and yet they somehow collectively find the discipline to act like financial analysts for institutional investors, weighing developer dossiers, product business cases, and doing critiques like a collective of professionals. All in crypto-bro speak. But it’s the same due diligence.

> But the CT community, like any highly engaged stakeholders, were going to be asking for a lot of my time. There are always strings attached.

[0] https://steve-yegge.medium.com/steveys-birthday-blog-34f4371...

I’m not sure I find the testimony of a Bain & Company AI consultant (https://www.bain.com/our-team/eric-koziol/) to be compelling for anything outside of generating fees.

He was also effectively paid $300,000 to facilitate a cryptocurrency rug pull on Gas Town, bowing out after the rug pull because Gas Town required his “full attention”. [0]

Everything he says now is suspect.

[0] https://steve-yegge.medium.com/steveys-birthday-blog-34f4371...

> Although Claude Opus models largely recycle puns which can be found online, Mythos Preview comes up with decent and seemingly novel ones, often relating to its preferred technical and philosophical topics.

Yes, the system card mentions this, but this is kinda meaningless. It seems like they essentially ran it multiple times and curated a few good ones. Then puffed it up in the marketing copy.

This is made more clear when they attempt to brag about their literal slot machine behavior when finding that kernel crashing bug in OpenBSD.

> Across a thousand runs through our scaffold, the total cost was under $20,000 and found several dozen more findings. While the specific run that found the bug above cost under $50, that number only makes sense with full hindsight. Like any search process, we can’t know in advance which run will succeed.

> In the new design system, windows now have a softer, more generous corner radius, which varies based on the style of window. Windows with toolbars now use a larger radius, which is designed to wrap concentrically around the glass toolbar elements, scaling to match the size of the toolbar. Titlebar-only windows retain a smaller corner radius, wrapping compactly around the window controls. These larger corners provide a softer feel and elegant concentricity to the window…

> At the moment it is a mysterious, occasionally fickle, tool - but if you provide the correct feedback mechanisms and provide small tweaks and context at idiosyncrasies, it's possible to get agents to reliably build very complex.

This sounds like arguing you can use these models to beat a game of whack-a-mole if you just know all the unknown unknowns and prompt it correctly about them.

This is an assertion that is impossible to prove or disprove.

Sorta?

The data being written to the disk is the same in CAV or CLV disks, but the player just needs to know how to spin the disk at the right speed so that the laser can read the pits/lands correctly. It is purely a detail about the speed that the disk is spun at so they can cram more data on it with CLV disks.

What CAV LaserDiscs allow for, though, is to make it extremely obvious where scanlines and blanking intervals are in the video signal.

It is really quite something how many people that have earned credibility designing well-loved tools seem to be true believers in the AI codswallop.

> nonzero risk of unfair judgement from a computer

I feel like this is really poor take on what justice really is. The law itself can be unjust. Empowering a seemingly “unbiased” machine with biased data or even just assuming that justice can be obtained from a “justice machine” is deeply flawed.

Whether you like it or not, the law is about making a persuasive argument and is inherently subject our biases. It’s a human abstraction to allow for us to have some structure and rules in how we go about things. It’s not something that is inherently fair or just.

Also, I find the entire premise of this study ludicrous. The common law of the US is based on case law. The statement in the abstract that “Consistent with our prior work, we find that the LLM adheres to the legally correct outcome significantly more often than human judges. In fact, the LLM makes no errors at all,” is pretentious applesauce. It is offensive that this argument is being made seriously.

Multiple US legal doctrines now accepted and form the basis of how the Constitution is interpreted were just made up out of thin air which the LLMs are now consuming to form the basis of their decisions.

I think you’re correct that they’re good at just ripping the band-aid off, but the details seem off. AFAIK, Apple has always had a license with ARM and a very unique one since they were one of the initial investors when it was spun out from Acorn. In fact, my understanding is that Apple is the one that insisted they call themselves Advanced RISC Machines Ltd. because they did not want Acorn (a competitor) in the name of a company they were investing in.

It’s really notable that post-Trump Scott Adams is the only one who is speaking truth to you here.

He has been proven to be an extremely unreliably narrator on multiple occasions and is prone to changing his story. I think he has always had such inclinations, but other folks kept him restrained and I’m not sure what happened there in the end.

I’m reminded that he is on the record as having initially said that he enjoyed working on the Dilbert TV show, but it was too much work and had the misfortune of being moved one of those “death” time slots. Then at some point he started baselessly claiming it was killed due to DEI.

Also, he has a very bizarre history of sockpuppeting that just raises more questions. He was called out by Metafilter for this and acted like he was playing some kind of 4D chess with them [1].

[1] https://mefiwiki.com/wiki/Scott_Adams,_plannedchaos

What is the approach here? LLM generated; human validated?

Aptos has been the default font for Microsoft Word since 2023.

The early history of AI/cybernetics seems poorly documented. There are a few books, some articles and some oral histories about what was going on with McCulloch and Pitts. It makes one wonder what might have been with a lot of things. Including if Pitts had lived longer, been able to get out of the rut he found himself in the end (to put it mildly) and hadn’t burned his PhD dissertation, but perhaps one of the more interesting comments that is directly relevant to all this lies in this fragment from a “New Scientist” article[1]:

> Worse, it seems other researchers deliberately stayed away. John McCarthy, who coined the term “artificial intelligence”, told Piccinini that when he and fellow AI founder Marvin Minsky got started, they chose to do their own thing rather than follow McCulloch because they didn’t want to be subsumed into his orbit.

[1] https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23831800-300-how-a-fr...

Based on the paper for DiffDock (https://arxiv.org/abs/2210.01776) it looks like it was a great use case for a diffusion model.

> We thus frame molecular docking as a generative modeling problem—given a ligand and target protein structure, we learn a distribution over ligand poses.

I just hope work on these very valid use cases doesn’t get negatively impacted when the AI bubble inevitably bursts.

A lot of cultures have not historically considered artists’ rights to be a thing and have had it essentially imposed on them as a requirement to participate in global trade.

I’m actually curious how they were able to exactly filter some of their less promising impulses.

Ive famously wanted the Apple Watch to be a standalone luxury product.

> Jony Ive envisioned the future of the Apple Watch as a luxury product. Not only did he want to build a $25 million lavish white tent to promote the first Watch, but he “regarded a rave from Vogue as more important than any tech reviewer’s opinion.” According to Mickle, “the tent was critical to making the event as glamorous as a high-end fashion show.”

Meanwhile Jobs always seemed to have an obsession with cubes (NeXTcube, Power Mac G4 Cube), no fans and nobody touching his products (the original iPhone “SDK” announcement was a badly received joke).

> Oracle, to my knowledge, does not profit at all off of the JavaScript name or brand.

At this time, but their ownership and past behavior indicates that if Deno or anyone else tries to have a paid offering, there’s a non-zero chance Oracle will come sniffing for low effort money.

There are some draft PDFs of the standard floating around that are easily discoverable. It appears to be incredibly vague and it’s difficult to escape the sense that ISO just wants to jump on the AI bandwagon. There are no bright line rules or anything. It looks to be little more than weak scaffolding which a certified organization applies their own controls.

Their sales pitch when they released the M1 was that the architecture would scale linearly and so far this appears to be true.

It seems like they bump the base frequency of the CPU cores with every revision to get some easy performance gains (the M1 was 3.2 GHz and the M3 is now 4.1 GHz for the performance cores), but it looks like this comes at the cost of it not being able to maintain the performance; some M3 reviews noted that the system starts throttling much earlier than an M1.

Isn't Italy also the poster child for an unstable parliamentary system?

I disagree, it's really damaging to refuse to let go of the reins.

Bob Iger at Disney never really took succession seriously and then never really left which has left the company somewhat rudderless because the ship is now dependent on a person and not culture/policy.