mattlutze

Not sure why needing less battery or having better at-a-glance visibility would be such a bad thing.

One need not love a device, that's ok. But digging to invent a reason to hate it also doesn't seem necessary.

It would be a good idea for young people to deeply know how these programs work. Not so that they can spend their career building them, but so that they can approach the next class of problems we'll all start trying to solve, with intuition all the way down to the weights and underlying mathematics. And also, to develop a healthy intuition of when "Just LLM it" will not be the right choice.

"Build an OS" wasn't a common university project because we were all expected to go out and work on Windows, but because understanding the bare-metal firmware for a computer helps you deeply understand how to intuit building for a whole class of problems.

Permanent "leasers" swap devices every few years, stocking the company's second-hand options and increasing average lifetime value of the participating products.

As these things go, if the service provider is able to make step one work and the airport continues the partnership, an eventual step would indeed be coming closer to or at the terminal, and the robot scooters (sounds a little like scaled-up warehouse robots) would move the car to storage.

The advantage is having a voice in setting direction, investment and ultimate shared incremental profit recovery over the rent capture from hyperscalers.

It's an interesting idea really. But it also comes with cooperation, which means trust, and a lot of for-profit enterprises are bad at operating cooperatively outside of 2- or 3- way engagements.

Then you've had lots of fun with EAR compliance.

This can be for e.g. sales acquisition or marketing engagement, but also includes cookies to simplify login, so not everything is "stupid stuff." A cookie that stores "was here, skip the splash page" may already fall afowl, if you put any session metadata in it.

Except, what actually has happened is that the annoying pop-ups became ubiquitous, and then relatively standardized, so that now an extension like Consent-o-Matic (because the browser companies don't want to upset their advertisers) can automate away your actual choices.

If you want to allow websites to track you, tell the extension to make those choices. If you don't, then tell the extension that. It does a great job almost instantly clearing the popups, and you have more control over your digital identity.

It is thoroughly documented that social media and the modern web are designed to be addictive, by psychologists who specialize in this. We regulate access to other addictive things, because addictive things break humans' normal control systems.

> "the farther you get from the influence of bureaucrats, the happier life becomes"

only when things are "normal" and if you're a default power-holder in a community. For everyone else, really no.

They were fun times :D

Any company that has unique or rare data is compelled to do things with it. Those that don’t either can’t figure out how or explicitly reject the reward function of contemporary capitalism. We should really expect those deviations to be the exception.

When we let structural regulations assert protective conditions on a market, we try to advantage proactive harm reduction at the cost of innovation, because artificial market limitations will be barriers to innovation and create secondary game conditions that advantage some players.

Which way we lean should depend on the type and severity of potential harms, especially with consideration of how permanent or non-reversible those harms are.

They're already having a negative, contaminating effect on our upper atmosphere

Sending up bigger ones, and more (today there's some 8,800, but they target 30k), sounds ill-advised.

1: https://www.fastcompany.com/91419515/starlink-satellites-are... 2: https://www.science.org/content/article/burned-satellites-ar...

The Model 3 manages < 140 Wh/km, and many seem to be under 150/160/170.

Lighter motors for mobile robots could also be cool.

Cost centers in businesses are early canaries of expected pain, and a reduction in security roles may reflect belt-tightening irrespective of AI impact.

The US has since gotten bad at dealing with companies like this. A company like Google or Amazon could/should be broken up into a few parts and would likely result in those parts together being worth more than when it was just the one company, and more competition in each industry.

Too early and the break-up can kill innovation. Too late and the company will have been a rent-seeking operation for so long that it chokes out dynamism.

It might be too early for OpenAI, but we shouldn't wait until they own all of the next Internet in the way Facebook, Google and Amazon ended up.

That would seem to be counter to the "impact" goal for research.

We also don't know, in situations like this, whether all of or how much of the research is true. As has been regularly and publicly demonstrated [0][1][2], the most capable of these systems still make very fundamental mistakes, misaligned to their goals.

The LLMs really, really want to be our friend, and production models do exhibit tendencies to intentionally mislead when it's advantageous [3], even if it's against their alignment goals.

0: https://www.afr.com/companies/professional-services/oversigh... 1: https://www.nbcnews.com/world/australia/australian-lawyer-so... 2: https://calmatters.org/economy/technology/2025/09/chatgpt-la... 3: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2509.18058?

Their conclusion is that "[...] ethnic and elitist forms of nationalism, which combine to forge exclusive nationalism, help to perpetuate autocratic regimes by continually legitimating minority exclusions [...]"

Right-wing nationalism as we're currently experiencing it is exclusive. It broadly advocates for restoring revised historical cultural narratives of a particular ethnic group, for immigration restriction and immigrant removal, for further minority culture erasure, and so on.

1: https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:859c6af4-d4fd-461e-b605-42...

The German social perspective on privacy has been strongly for the individual over the state for a long time. Chat Control goes too far, and Germany should be a loud voice in the heavy moderation of state surveillance powers.

In any of my teams with moderate to significant code bases, we've always had to lean very hard into code comments and documentation, because a developer will forget in a few months the fine details of what they've previously built. And further, any org with turnover needs to have someone new come in and be able to understand what's there.

I don't think I've met a developer that keeps all of the architecture and design deeply in their mind at all times. We all often enough need to go walk back through and rediscover what we have.

Which is to say... if the LLM generator was instead a colleague or neighboring team, you'd still need to keep up with them. If you can adapt those habits to the generative code then it doesn't seem to be a bit leap.

The impending harm here is explicit, immediate, and as demonstrated previously serious for these labs and research fields. It's unfortunate that Judge Cobb didn't find this to be sufficient, but hopefully on appeals some relief may be offered.

Temporary loss of income is I think not generally a basis for irreparable harm for more or less the argument you hint at.