ptero

Indoors. There were decades of research leading to the recommendations of mask wearing when symptomatic and only indoors.

All that fell by the wayside when mask wearing became a covid-time cult. A friend (with a degree in epidemiology) told me that if she tried to argue those points and doubts outdoor mask mandates she will be the immediately out of her job.

The covid-time environment of shutting down scientific discussions because policymakers decided that we had enough science to reach a conclusion should not be forgotten, it was a reasonable concern turned into a cult. My 2c.

I'd further refine "aircraft surveillance" to "air traffic control".

On the defense side ADS-B can provide a baseline air picture of cooperative traffic, but does not otherwise help with detecting non-cooperative aircraft.

> I am literally using Claude opus 4.1 right now

On HIPAA data?

HIPAA systems at any sane company will not have "a straight connect" to anything on Asure, AWS or GCP. They will likely have a special layer dedicated to record keeping and compliance.

> Interceptors being more expensive is a big problem.

Yes, but they do not have to be. Shaheeds are slow, easy to detect and track and not maneuverable. They could be intercepted by very cheap short range systems.

What makes interceptors expensive are requirements to counter stealthy, maneuverable targets with very high success probability (i.e., when you consider a leaker to be catastrophic). Nether of this applies to current UKR threats. At least not yet.

That access is over a limited API and usually under heavy restrictions on the healthcare org side (e. g., only use a dedicated machine, locked up software, tracked responses and so on).

Running a local model is often much easier: if you already have data on a machine and can run a model without breaching any network one could run it without any new approvals.

Likely nothing once the stock is actually trading with some history. But for initial placement wall-street-bets action could be very disruptive.

The company wants to avoid sharp drops after the IPO, as those encourage employees to get out ASAP, which increases the volatility and discourages large, stable investors.

Yes. But Google being Google it got top notch planning advice from world class auction experts that Goldman pulled in to advise them on the IPO.

Most companies without such expert advice could step into some pitfalls. Just a guess, I am not an expert, but if my company were doing an IPO I would prefer it not to play financial games to eke out a percent of IPO price and instead focus on long term price stability to become a solid stock. My 2c.

An auction for IPO price is much easier to manipulate and can lead to much volatility. Pre-allocating to the entities that are not expected to sell quickly or participate in pump-and-dumps (pension funds, etc.) is considered a better long term strategy for the company, as the sister comment says.

Some equal access policy that it was worried about. Do you have kids? If so, what age(s)?

No, teaching what the local parents believe is best for their own kids. While there are certainly a few of those who will want bibles, most in my experience put much higher value in the extra STEM unhindered by ideology.

My kids high school recently cancelled advanced math classes because the racial composition of students there was not what the school hoped to see. No, thank you, I want parents to have a much bigger influence on what schools teach.

I don't think this is correct. The majority of people prefers states to have more influence on school curriculum and federal government to have less. Yes, there are downsides to that, but it generally means that hours on STEM will increase and hours on ideology will decrease.

Removing federal influence in setting agenda while sending federal funding directly to states without federal oversight of programs would not be a bad thing. My 2c.

> Adobe had a huge moat forimage and video tools because they were historically very hard to develop. ... Adobe's labyrinth of menus is legacy.

I am not sure. I heard the same arguments from the gimp crowd for years. But they always kept talking about solving their own problems (programmatic changing of imagery for web development), not the problems creative, non programmer users had and were willing to pay for solving (interactive manipulation based on visual feedback, which is how many creative types tend to work). They vehemently opposed improvements that were critical for hobbyists and professionals, like insisting on staying with 8-bit colors forever.

As a result, 25+ years later, gimp is a niche tools with its main draw being that it is free. Adobe spent a lot of time understanding workflows of target users.

When I, a pure hobbyist, work on my photos in Photoshop my feeling is immediately "ah, it really does what I want". As much as I hate Adobe business practices I gladly pay their subscription ransom to have Photoshop when I process my travel pictures.

I am not sure the new crowd understands paying users (and not "I will use it for free and watch ads" folks) any better than gimp used to. But I wish them luck. My 2c.

> Gimp is an awful app with terrible UX.

Yes, and it's not clear that those startups will fare better than gimp.

Adobe spends inordinate amount of effort to understand the problems that users are solving and make UX that users love. As the result Adobe has tons of money to improve the product. Users curse its business practices, white an occasional "goodbye Adobe" or "FU" messages but keep buying subscriptions.

The moat around this should not be underestimated. My 2c.

This. I heard "gimp is free and will kill Adobe within a year or two" from 1997 or so. As much as I hate Adobe's methods it still wins hands down in UX for image editing. So, as a hobbyist, I have no plans to cancel my subscription.

I wish for some real competition in this space, but it will take a LOT of effort to dethrone Adobe. My 2c.

> This is already happening

Yes. When I said 5-10 years it wasn't to say that the effects would start then. That was my WAG at the time when normal, mild methods like localized YCC stop working and we should expect significant system-level problems.

For investments, I think now "buying index" will stop working well and buying chosen quality, profitable companies will work much better. My 2c.

IMO US is heavily exporting its inflation by leveraging its world reserve currency status as other countries have to buy it's treasuries (petrodollar system legacy). No other country would be able to run 30+% budget deficits and sell long duration government bonds under 5%.

This will break, sooner or later.

When external buyers stop buying treasuries US will have to massively inflate its money supply, taking bondholders and a bunch of other groups to the cleaners. Such events have a lot of collateral damage, which may fit the definition of financial blow up. But I would place us much further away than 6-12 months, likely at 5-10 years. If there is a viable alternative to US treasuries, potentially sooner, but still not in 12 months. My 2c.

Just empirical observations. It takes time to propagate technology down to general businesses and business methods up to technology developers. The "propagate down to business methods" is the slower path, as it requires business leaders to become familiar enough with technology to get ideas on how to leverage it.

This is not a new observation -- Clark's note on overestimating short term and underestimating long term impact of technology is one of my favorite patterns. My 2c.

While true, the world doesn't end in 2025. While I would also agree that big financial benefits from agents to companies appear unlikely to arrive this year (and the title specifically mentions 2025) I would bet on agents becoming a disruptive technology in the next 5-10 years. My 2c.

I see the same effect regarding macroeconomic discussions. Great content on X that is head and shoulders (says me) above discussions on other platforms.

Another vote for the Horn of the Abyss! It is a community pack that keeps the HOMM3 gameplay spirit but adds a lot of minor UI enhancements fixing various pain points.

And if you like insanely complex scenarios, check out HotA user maps on maps4heroes.

Yes, but for a while google was head and shoulders above the competition. It also poured a ton of money into building non-search functionality (email, maps, etc.). And had a highly visible and, for a while, internally respected "don't be evil" corporate motto.

All of which made it much less likely that users would bolt in response to each real monetization step. This is very different to the current situation, where we have a shifting landscape with several AI companies, each with its strengths. Things can change, but it takes time for 1-2 leaders to consolidate and for the competition to die off. My 2c.

Sorry for confusion. In "buying widgets" I meant the regular procurement decision: the DoD needs N units of something (door handles, tank shells, whatever), it publishes specs, asks for bids and buys from whoever can deliver at the lower cost to the taxpayer. The government also funds research, where it gives money to generate something it believes to be beneficial longer term.

Funding research is, by definition, less cut-and-dry as to what we should pay for; thus having an agenda is not always bad and might even be good. I am using an "agenda" not in a narrow political sense, but including positions like "we should be funding space comms / drone networks / real-time soldier health monitoring / whatever because industry is not building what we think we will need in a few years".

But being somewhat exposed to the waste of DoD procurement I am personally vehemently against inserting such ideology into procurement decisions. Those should be money-based. Get what you need at the least cost to the taxpayer. If you do not know what you need, think harder or invite experts or do a study (and publish it so people writing it know they are associated with those decisions) before paying billions for questionable junk. My 2c.

IMO if the government needs widgets it should ask for bids and contract based on price. Some broad restrictions are OK (e.g., prefer domestic manufacturers), but government has no business skewing the contract by promoting <insert favorite agenda>. If we want to promote X with public money, do so explicitly and separately: support research, fund startups, etc. My 2c

Every system has bugs, even deployed, high visibility accounting systems. Debian stable, which I personally view as the gold standard for a robust general purpose OS, has hundreds of bugs.

That is not to say that bugs are good. They are bad and should be squashed. But the Horizon failure, IMO, is with the management, that pretended that the system was bug free and, faced with the evidence to the contrary, put the blame on postmasters. My 2c.

As an American, I would welcome the world without American domination. Or without any single country domination for that matter. Competition of systems is good for the world.

It doesn't need to turn the US into some grubby mafia state. It could, but I think it is unlikely. But the road for both the US and the world IMO goes down before it goes up as many systems and alliances around the world that depend on US domination shift or crumble. My 2c.

According to the article the data is still collected and processed by the same Department of Defense systems, but is no longer shared in the open (presumably because it can show some information about blue forces).

Can someone clarify what the likely concern at those frequencies is?

Good point. I assumed relevance was approximately similar to the correlation, without a strong assumption on the signs. Which is just my interpretation, not a universal definition.

Unfortunately, there are enough courts that are very willing to slap any label on any suitably vilified candidate. Pick any president of India; you can probably find a Pakistani court would be willing to convict for "crimes against humanity". And vice versa. Or pick some Iraq-Iran pairings. Or Armenian- Azerbaijani, etc.

Allowing external courts to judge presidents is a bad idea. It is a slippery slope even for cases that seem obvious. My 2c.

"In the wrong" is often jurisdiction specific. I do not want otherwise reasonable candidates to avoid the ballot because of the risk of being convicted by some external court.

Please do. Some real competition would be good for all sides!