ashleyn
You can technically have some then-contemporary FMV titles run on N64 with a 64MB cart. The hardware lends itself to it because it has the RSP, a secondary MIPS processor with re-programmable microcode. But the best video compression we had at the time was MPEG-2, which just wouldn't cut it.
The dream journaling bit is important too, you often forget your dreams waking up and there's no sense in having a lucid dream if you don't remember it. Dream journaling helps you build "dream recall".
(As a side note, repurposing the concept of reality checking helped me greatly when I was experimenting with substances and it went very badly.)
Interesting to see this approach validated in a formal study. There are a whole host of other induction techniques that were discussed as well: "WILD", "MILD", and a lot of other acronyms ending in "-ILD". Stephen LaBerge may have even studied them in the 1990s.
If your email provider offers email aliases, you should really get familiar with how to use them, and use a unique email alias per website.
There's a tendency for people to react to institutional problems like this by saying they'll just move over here to a blue state, or they'll monitor their accounts closer on reporting bureaus, or they'll just have a lawyer on retainer, etc, etc. If a legal system in a red state is this dysfunctional, you can't simply hide away in a blue state with better-run systems. The underlying problem - the social decay of much of the US and the broader world - needs to be directly engaged with and confronted.
This is, I think, as close to ideal as an AI policy for media can possibly be. For certain things - visual art, music, storywriting, game design, and public communications - I think consumers will continue to value the human element and demand it. The optimistic take is that this will line up with the capitalist incentive as well, no matter how much AI reduces the cost of production to nearly zero. People just won't want to engage with slop.
>Nothing in our rules prohibits writers from using a new tool to help them research something, or prevents an artist from using a tool to, say, add a texture or change a color, or make some kind of small element. But we need, first, to ensure that technologies are a tool used by workers to help them, rather than a tool used to replace workers. And, second, we need to make sure that readers aren’t being fed things that look like people’s genuine thoughts and creative expression but are in fact the product of disembodied mathematical formulas.
This is another W as far as their AI policy goes. While skeptical of "slop" and other kinds of lazily-generated, low-quality output, I also remain highly critical of anti-AI absolutism. Generally these are the types of arguments you see bandied about on places like Bluesky which lean hard on the environmental impact/third-worldist perspectives, argue for AI-driven skills loss, make tenuous and contrived connections of AI with their hot-button cultural issue, or only seem to view AI through the lens of their own job security. None of these issues are inherent to AI or are insurmountable, and hardliners make an incorrect assumption that the technology can simply be banned or boycotted away. Many of them are feverishly waiting for "the bubble pop", which is barked with the same optimism as evangelical predictions of the Rapture. Some of these people are so obsessive about being anti-AI that they wield whatever diminutive influence they may have to ban your IP address from their website if their server ever catches Claude doing a web search on it.
"Remigration" is the idea that already-naturalised citizens should be stripped of their citizenship and deported back to their countries of origin[1]. The idea is gaining increased legitimacy and currency on the political right and is supported by high profile figures in the Trump administration[2]. Greg Bovino, former commander of CBP, even attended a "Remigration Summit" in Europe.
Remigration usually has a racial component to it, but the increasing use of the term "heritage American" on the right[3] isn't necessarily encouraging that the precedent set by remigration, if adopted as a mainstream policy by the GOP, would stay neatly confined to recently-arrived, former-refugee black and brown naturalised citizens.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remigration [2]: https://www.npr.org/2025/12/09/nx-s1-5630505/remigration-onc... [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritage_American
Even if you work by the logic of respecting the median voter's position as legitimate and worthy of equal consideration by mere virtue of it being democratically held (a viewpoint I don't necessarily subscribe to), it seems as if the median voter got an own goal this cycle.
I'm trans. I'm also smart, wealthy, and live in America - an intersection of categories that essentially mean you can do almost anything you want to do with your life. I've barely felt any of the consequences of the election because I can afford to move to somewhere where the legislative climate is more friendly, can afford to have a social life among people who are not hostile, can afford to pay out of pocket for every new medication of mine that gets banned off insurance, and largely shrug off fuel and food inflation. I'm not feeling the consequences of the current regime half as bad as the people who voted enthusiastically for it. If the goal was to obstruct or ruin my life for being a member of a given suspect class, then the goal failed.
Culture war is nonsense and nothing can ever supersede material conditions.
There is no solution to this problem other than electing a candidate who will raise taxes, fund infrastructure, and stabilise prices. I don't care what party they come from. I don't have optimism we'll get anyone like this on the national stage within the next decade - NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani is the closest I've seen yet to a candidate who espouses the positions I'd like to see in someone who is qualified to run for president.
Amid all the discussion of sigmoid curves, and where the "LLM wall" will materialise, I think few people would have predicted that the real wall in LLMs would end up being humans' capacity to verify the output.
What I fear is that people simply eschew human review altogether, considering we're talking about the industry that came up with the "move fast and break things" credo. Human review of LLM-produced code where I work is already a farce, and we're not special enough to be one of Karpathy's 5,000. I do my best to manually review anything that's my responsibility, but I'm literally one of very few people left working on my team, so in practice what happens is I submit PRs that are at best glossed over by completely unrelated teams for security, malware/prompt injection, and other serious concerns. Quality insofar as vetting others' code has completely gone out the window and it shows in the number of bug reports that come back, often themselves written in Claudease. This is all on top of everyone cynically phoning it in in the first place, due to the omnipresent sword of Damocles that is additional AI-driven layoffs.
Worse yet all the incentives point to this being the most economically viable thing individual companies can do. I think it goes without saying some type of regulation here is urgently needed, and that an unexpected cause of an AI bubble pop may end up being that humans simply aren't able to keep up with the pace of the output - leading either to precautionary plateauing of capability, or major liability risks related to a decline in quality.
Online purchases in some fashion are delivered to you and put on your hard disk. You can in theory preserve the game or reverse engineer it when its constituent parts have to be delivered to you.
At some point, boycott will be consumers' only viable move. Legislation is urgently needed here imo.
Just two missions after Challenger, the orbiter experienced tile damage much like Columbia did 15 years later. It left an entire field of damage all the way down one side of the orbiter. They inspected under the orbiter using the canadarm as much as they could, and found some early indications of tile damage. Mission Control refused to use a high-resolution unencrypted camera to image under the orbiter due to the classified nature of the mission payload, instead using a lower resolution encrypted link, and dismissed the damage as video artifacts.
The crew wasn't happy at all at this assessment and seriously believed they were going to die on reentry. Mike Mullane believed he would see hot aluminum streak up the windshield like raindrops. Commander Hoot Gibson advised the crew there was no point in "dying all tensed up". Even if Mission Control had deemed this to be inevitable, it was not at all clear how quickly or even if NASA could process another orbiter and evacuate them in time.
The shuttle's wings have a combined elevator-aileron called an "elevon"; when both are in the same direction, they focus as an elevator (controlling pitch), and if they are in opposite directions, they function as an aileron (controlling roll). On reentry, Gibson kept his eyes glued to an elevon gauge to see if aerodynamic forces from a disintegrating airframe were forcing the onboard computer to roll the shuttle, creating a difference in degrees across the elevons. If they had deviated more than a few degrees, he planned on cussing out NASA before he and the rest of the crew died.
Fortunately, the shuttle made it back safely, but the damage was far worse than anyone anticipated. The foam strikes had spared the RCC leading edge panels that would eventually doom Columbia, however, nearly one half of the bottom of the shuttle had some degree of tile damage, and one had gone missing completely in a critical section. That section, by the grace of god, had a heavier plate welded to the airframe that was used as part of a communications antenna. One tile missing anywhere else, and the shuttle would have been destroyed.
US case law disagrees. From a botched execution of a child, even: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willie_Francis
By and large I view the death penalty as anachronistic, but as long as it must exist, one gets the impression that firing squads and hangings are a hell of a lot more honest about what it really is.
Question from someone written in AI? Just answer it in AI and send it back. What was it actually about - who cares? Bug comes in? Post the jira link in claude and don't even bother prompting anything else. If something critically breaks - well, eh, we'll deal with it then. FIRE (early retirement), a prediction their layoff is inevitable, and investing aggressively so you can finally escape actually working are often invoked in the same breath. Everyone feels like they're just trying to punch the drywall and grab as much copper wire out of the walls as they can until they're finally let go and/or the whole company fails.
There's a great deal of nihilism and cynicism in the industry currently, and it feels like LLMs are just greatly enabling it. Where you would've done a halfassed job previously, you'd now do an unchecked AI job.