Someone1234

> result is known to have significant issues.

So well known you neglected to state or cite them? I'd invite you to do so now.

In the previous (2024) Clacton election, Conservative + Reform got a combined 74.1% of the vote, with Labour + Liberal Democrats + Greens getting a combined 24.8%.

Considering Count Binface got 26.93% (i.e. +2.13% Vs. the previous combined), the opposition did in fact converge on him. It just so happen that in Clacton the opposition is tiny, it is a very right wing area - which is why Farage picked it.

So I'd not consider +2.13% over the previous combined opposition a bad result, quite the opposite. Unless you believe previous Conservative voters would pick Binface over Farage, which to me seems highly unlikely.

All numbers from:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_Clacton_by-election#Resul...

The Conservative party ran in the last election, they didn't run in this election, so more right wing voters likely moved from Conservative to Farage than he got 110% of his normal core/base.

With Let's Encrypt, all the verification is done on their side with them controlling the connection between themselves and whatever they're trying to verify.

In this case, you can put whatever you want between the harness you're running (or modify the harness itself), and essentially "lie" to the model. Any verification technique would be fairly trivial to bypass, while you continue to run the harness locally.

Yeah, I was researching this just last week and there is tons of funding going into wearable blood sugar monitors but nothing wearable sized coming out (several lab sized ones though).

I’d love to read more about what this is, and what technical signals / data they’re using.

I think using the current US Government, and their corrupting relationships with SpaceX/SpaceXAi/et al, maybe isn't quite the positive argument you believe it to be. I'd suggest that relationship is why it is unlikely the DoJ wouldn't/hasn't gone after SpaceXAi for some of their existing controversial actions.

Nobody else wants to be in the blast radius for whatever SpaceX/SpaceXAi does next, or whatever their next controversy is. It is easier, when asked, "Do you use Grok?" just to be able to answer no, instead of having to explain why you aren't embroiled in whatever is going on this week.

I agree; but I'm not sure it is fixable. Without some technological advancement to actually move the needle, most manufacturers are just stuck with marginal hardware changes and then some cheesy software-locked exclusive to the latest models.

I'd start here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grok_(chatbot)#Controversies_a...

And here:

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

I think polarizing is a generous way of describing the problems. My organization has outright banned Grok, because we don't trust SpaceX to hold up to contractual agreements vis-a-vis data-privacy/training. That's the level of reputational damage we're talking about here; and we use Chinese models (*hosted by US providers) for context.

Same reason why so called "Swatting" is largely a non-issue outside the US: Police in the US are trained to respond to the hilt by default, and then lower their heavy-handed response later if they warrant it. Contrast that with most other countries, where police are trained to respond and only escalate based on the findings/as the situation unfolds.

This training is supposedly for "officer safety." But being a police officer in the US isn't even in the top-10 most dangerous fields, and the vast majority of deaths are from traffic accidents or health issues while on the job (e.g. heart attack/stroke), not gun-related. So it is more likely a cultural issue within the profession.

I completely agree.

I think LLMs may have a role in security posture, specifically flagging/identifying potential threats for human review. But a Zero Trust/Access Controls should be a HARD boundary, not an inconsistent one.

The problem we have right now is that there are some legitimately interesting ideas out there for things we could be using LLMs for, but we also have a ton of "I have a hammer, and everything looks like a nail" going on too.

What does copyright have to do with anything? You also cannot copyright an encryption algorithm, but the US Government banned essentially mathematics for YEARS[0].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_from_th...

I've looked into this extensively in the US, and there are three headaches from my POV:

1. Most states require special device certification by a "nationally recognized authority" that doesn't seem to fully exist yet. There ARE devices that would almost certainly GET certified, but aren't yet.

2. Ordering panels is a PITA. Most want to sell you either RV/Camping grade (overpriced), or in too large of quantities (e.g. 10x+). If you want to hit under 1,200 Watts meaning just 2x 600 Watt panels, well, nobody wants to ship that. Most popular panel vendors, don't want to sell single-panels, and you're looking at 500% markup for camping/RV style panels (with often worse performance, and proprietary connectors).

3. "Moveable" panel requirements. The laws frequently don't define what that means or what that looks like. It seems to want to essentially ban a small roof install, but stuff like ground-mounting (e.g. even just for the angle), or securing so they don't blow over, is ambiguous. Plus most laws don't exempt you from planning requirements, just utility requirements, so the local city/county can still fine you for your "install."

What I am saying is: I'm absolutely in love with plug-in solar, but unfortunately being an early adopter in the US is going to be annoying. I hope in ten years it will be almost turn-key, just buy a "kit" plug it in, and you're done.

> US real median household income has been steadily rising[1] for the last 40+ years.

Compare it to the Consumer Price Index:

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CUUR0000SA0R

And they've provided no technical explanation of how...

This may be an odd reference, but I remember this song and dance with Roomba Vs. Roborock. "Roborock stole our IP!!!" but the problem was that song was slightly believable in the very early days, then Roborock started releasing products far better than anything Roomba had, but the tune in the US never changed. Literally for years after Roborock's products were two generations better than Roomba, but somehow they "stole" that?

China has money, talent, and cheap electricity/superior infrastructure. The US's big AI built their products on stolen copyright material and social media scraping. China likely got a catchup boost via distilling, but recently a lot of their AI ventures have come fully online, and they've just throwing tons of compute/power at the problem, and we're starting to see legitimately competitive products without shortcuts/cheating.

But the US won't change its tune; and that's convenient because they don't really want to compete, but rather roll out protectionism and fear per normal.

Right; but THAT idea is consumer hostile by design.

So your account is now tied to a physical device; great, but the device is dead, or you own a dozen devices, now what? Each vendor has their own idea about what THIS means. Heck I have a couple that allow, max, a single Passkey at a time.

> There is no need or advantage to a full frontal assault.

Perhaps, but in the last year China did build these:

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2025/03/stairway-to-tai...

Then most of us would never use it. That means either:

- Only one specific device can ever login (bad).

- It doesn't limit login to one specific device, therefore it does nothing.

Linking Passkeys to a physical device was always DoA. At least not without a way to enroll every device you own, and strong recovery strategies. But considering how inconsistent every company's Passkey implementation is (inc. many that only allow ONE TOTAL!), it is DoA.

Less work today or less work tomorrow?

The problem with "someone makes a request, code changes happen automatically, and all someone else has to do for that to be committed is mash approve" doesn't strike me as a way to create a maintainable code-base.

The changes may even work, and may technically fulfill the request, but the agent cannot know the design intent or process intent. Today there may be a programmer sitting between the request and approval, but what about tomorrow? Might it be a non-technical or barely technical middle manager?

I suspect they're ignoring that debate since they have reason to anticipate a US Government action that allows them to not need to compete in a free market.

That has been my experience too.

It will cost you more than it saves to use smaller Chinese models to code; because of the repeated work. That has been slowly changing recently, but with much larger Chinese models, however those models are so expensive they're much more price-competitive iwth the US competition.

But for actually providing end-user AI features, particularly simpler ones, the US isn't even in contention. The costs and limitations just outright kill those features conceptually.

You're much more "glass half full" than me, but one can dream.

That's great, thank you.

What's frustrating about that is that Microsoft has also gone out of their way to make it difficult to access the [legacy] System Properties (sysdm.cpl), while not fully reimplementing all the features into the Settings app. Including this one.

They've only been working on this 10+ years...

> The graph is not presenting a narrative, did you mean to reply to someone else who is presenting the "revisionist history"?

The title of this thread is "What AI did to stackoverflow in a graph." That's a narrative. At least before the mods change it.

ChatGPT was released in Nov 2022, and frankly wasn't very good originally. The SO decline started occurring almost two years ahead of that, and was already on a sharp decline before ChatGPT shipped, and certainly before ChatGPT actually became good.

This is revisionist history. People told SO that they were leaving for YEARS because of how incredibly toxic it had become. It was already giving outdated answers before ChatGPT shipped, because new questions/potentially updated answers were [Closed] [Dupe] immediately.

Their answer was essentially "We aren't a Q&A site, we're trying to be a knowledge base! So closing all questions on a Q&A-stylized site, and extremely abrasive moderation, is working as intended."

They entirely did this to themselves. The community was toxic, their policies were toxic, and they didn't listen when warned as such repeatedly - just doubled down.

The monitor itself isn't installing anything, Windows detects the device by unique ID, and uses Windows Update to get the driver which itself triggers a Windows Store application (malware) to install.

The monitor only sends a unique device ID, everything else is handled by Windows.

Worth noting that gpedit.msc isn't included in Windows Home editions (although there are unsupported ways of adding it). This is also technically asking a lot for working around issues that shouldn't exist.

Microsoft needs to intervene here, this cannot be a normal expectation for using their product.

I'd agree it is similar to Anthropic's naming scheme, which I'd argue shares the same problems as this. It improves marketability/googlability, but decreases actual comprehension.

You don't actually explain why or how these names are "easy to understand" just state that they simply are. That's great; to me, they aren't obvious or intuitive at all. May have well just start randomly pointing at dictionary words.

> When do you use GPT-5.6-Max-Low vs. GPT-5.6-Plus High?

You don't, because that isn't something I proposed using for model naming.

I called them GPT-5.6-Max, GPT-5.6-Plus, and GPT-5.6-Fast. Reasoning levels are distinct from the model design itself, and the UI makes that clear.

Plus, using that same flawed argument this would be called GPT-5.6-Sol-Low or GPT-5.6-Luna-High which also makes no sense/is confusing. So that argument applies (or more accurately doesn't), no matter the model names.

That isn't what "genuinely asking" looks like, you're criticizing using "questions" as cover. It isn't subtle, nor is it constructive.

I agree with them, Sol, Terra, and Luna are confusing names. They mean the same thing as GPT-5.6-Max, GPT-5.6-Plus, and GPT-5.6-Fast but require base knowledge for an analogy.

It feels like it was adding by the marketing department.

I too found this with their previous attempts.

I have my Chat personality settings stripped right down to no-fluff. I'd want voice to be more akin to the Star Trek computer, and less akin to as you said an AI friend, but previously it was tuned too personable/friend-like.