pohl

Explicitly specifying “Apple” is almost like not specifying “Apple”? Did you “almost” fail to mention Samsung?

Why not both? Send up new telescopes and keep the old ones running.

There’s nothing bizarre at all about mentioning the recent prominent contagious disease crisis in an article about another rising contagion. It would be kind of weird not to.

Isn’t their motivation just the need to create verifiable foundations for the platform for AI private cloud compute? Everything else should just be gravy.

Plot twist: now he's entirely disinterested in the mountain now that it gives itself so freely.

Dr. Lexus: "Don't wanna sound like a dick or nothin', but it says on your chart that your mac is f'd up. What I'd do, is just like... ha ha... like... aha... you know, like, you know what I mean, like... haha..."

The rebranding from Twitter to X, then, has been more successful than anticipated. It should have been X Windows that one mistook the topic for.

I saw it there the day before yesterday!

Re: “consequence of forcing people”, who is doing the “forcing” in your scenario and how is that force applied?

But what is Yi?

It seems odd to complain about one old upright piano being crushed for the video when thousands upon thousands of them are out on the streets, living under bridges, because no one wants to move the piano anymore, or wanted the convenience of an electronic keyboard.

I implore you all: adopt a piano today! You may find yourself saying "I didn't rescue it, it rescued me."

I can understand the reflex. To me she was "that actress from that show Felicity that I never watched". The Diplomat turned me around real quick.

Newer libraries tend to be written to use Swift value types rather than classes, avoiding the bridging penalties you mentioned.

Did social media exist before Elon invented X?

That song is the first thing that went through my mind, too. It's an interesting re-framing of the song, even if there's nothing to it.

There's nothing in the Wikipedia entry that contradicts the possibility, though. Both could be true, with illicit details elided from the official telling.

Still I'm choosing to believe in innocent origins.

There is a single thread executor crate you can use for that case if it’s what you desire, FWIW.

As I read this, I kept thinking to myself “I sure hope the author is right.” I have grown weary of the way JavaScript infects and sucks the joy out of everything it touches.

But we already knew that because usenet.

I had an Eagle, too, along with models from other shows like Star Trek, Star Wars, etc. As I grew older, I realized how unrealistic they all are, as spaceships go. The Eagle still feels like it could be real, though. (Yeah, I know a modern pedantic internet space nerd could rip it to shreds, but you know what I mean.)

I think it’s been on the back burner since he got his new hobby of complaining about generative AI being too woke.

Why not both?

Am I to understand that no one has ever managed to rub one out with the assistance of their locked down iPhone?

“My trumpets and saxophones will only play the correct tones if I work with it to do so.”

I have no opinion either way, but this conflates mathematical with automated, doesn’t it?

The lyrics of Hair Metal Renaissance promised me a guitar solo, but reneged. I want a pony!

The NewScientist headline is terrible. I'm not even sure where in the paper they pulled that from. Maybe it was written by an LLM.

I’m kind of surprised the F-35 Helmet Mounted Display doesn’t get a mention.

I can imagine it being received differently today, but I read it twice in the 80s. It blew my mind. Now you can’t swing a stick without hitting some referent or concept in its pages, but that’s the internet age, efficiently routing the arcane to hypernerds worldwide. It’s made the whole world boring.

This is an overestimation of how much effort it takes to learn another language and stack, especially in a world with Google, Stack Overflow, and LLMs.

I don’t know anything about combinatory logic, but your question sounds similar to “why study push-down automata if we already know that turning machines are Turning complete?” Maybe I’m way off base in drawing that parallel, and if I am I’m curious why. Aren’t systems like these used to explore the hierarchy of computational power? I’m assuming that studying systems with less power is how those lines are drawn. Is that not the case here?

Quasicrystals is an excellent example. Penrose tiles were invented in 1974, but quasicrystals were discovered in 1982.