nsnzjznzbx

Thanks! Paid the debt in 6 days got bored.

No. A lot of the Australian ads play on the "this gimmick feature means if you lose you win!"

What it aleays means is you still win or lose a bet they just shuffled the permutations so that you win and lose in different outcomes.

But emotiionally they sell it as them giving you a chance. Pretty manipulative.

Examples would be like "money back if your horse comes second" or "bet on horse coming 3rd 4th or 5th" or "if your team is up at half time we count it as a win".

They are just offering a different wager!

Emulator link?

We will get to the point where you can quickly bootstrap i.e. an LLM can train a better LLM in a loop, leave it and it can really learn. Like learn learn.

"Train yourself to solve this problem see OBJECTIVE.md"

Not having that is a feature IMO. At work I wrote an .md and asked Rovo (similar to Claude Code) to check it.

In similar news I'll probably stop the tab suggestions in GH Copilot now and just agent all the things.

Oh that is a good use case. Don't connect to email and all that insecure stuff. But as a sandbox for "try this out and deploy a demo". Got me thinking!

They sound like cartoon voices... but I really like them I could listen to a book with those.

So you saying mashups were literally just connecting 2 things and selling it.

Isn't almost everyone doing that. Deploy docker to AWS connecting to Slack, Open AI and Anthropic to do X Y Z.

A great AI future is the robots doing stuff so we can be free. But none of the major isms are geared up to provide that i.e. capitalism or communism. Maybe hackable with UBI and capitalism mix.

You need a science museum!

I would rather have more housing than less though. Government can build it at scale without worrying about profit.

And privately built appartment blocks are awful. One cracked in Sydney had to be evacuated. Concrete cancer and water ingress issues. It is concrete enshittification.

Not really. Since a lot of code are tradeoffs and decisions made by programmers but the business spec is met either way.

Because I grew up in the UK and there is a fuckton of government housing from 60s and 70s. It is ugly but it is housing people.

Government doesn't need to make a profit due to taxation.

Electron.js took this concept a bit too far.

So Abraham de Moivre was the worlds first quant?

But building cost > sale value is possible.

Or land ends up better value left as suburban house than developing up.

Or they build where sale cost - build cost is maximized. I.e. different city.

Governments need to build more housing. Make it bland so snobs can price discrimnate themselves to buy builders' homes. Why thrifts by the government home for value for money (and quality).