zelon88

So far we're 1 full year early according to "AI 2027". (1)

"OpenBrain presents Agent-2 to the government, including the National Security Council (NSC), the Department of Defense (DOD), and the U.S. AI Safety Institute (AISI). "

(1) https://ai-2027.com

It's relevant because ground based satellites add observational capacity. If a ground based telescope can't get a good view, that's when you queue up Chandra or James Webb (Hubble is not the same type of telescope, and it's workload is not interchangeable).

Astronomers have thousands of interesting things they would like to point their telescopes at. There are thousands of capable ground stations that could take the easy targets, and only 2 x-ray satellites which should be used only for the highest value targets where absolute clarity and resolution is required. But if you start obstructing those ground stations, the workload must be taken over by just 2 satellites.

Ground stations are valued because they help solve the capacity planning problem. More usable telescopes === more observation time. Having more ground stations frees up the 2 satellite telescopes for truly stunning shots.

Part of the reason you don't see them more is because commercial satellite mega-constellations (like Starlink) work against long exposure times by literally clouding and brightening our view of space. (1)

1) https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-09759-5

One of the main concerns of astronomers, and one of the benefits of Chandra and James Webb being in orbit aboard sattelites, is the prevelance of commercial sattelite constellations ruining the view of the cosmos. (1)

1) https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-09759-5

I worked for the Chandra Operations Control Center in Burlington MA for a while. The team was a fascinating collaboration between Northrop Grumman, The Smithsonian, NASA, and Harvard.

The telescope was launched into orbit in 1999 and has been a tremendous value to astrophysics. Although it is showing signs of it's age, and it is not as capable or cost effective to operate as the James Webb telescope; it still offers scientists much needed capacity and logistics capability that come with having two telescopes in orbit instead of just one.

One of the fascinating parts about the telescope is it's resiliance and the dedication of the staff who control it. For example, to maximize the usable lifespan of the anti-radiation shielding, and to prevent radiation damage to sensitive features, the position of the craft is constantly being planned and adjusted relative to the sun to balance radiation exposure and maximize observation time at various targets. Much like telling a small child "don't stare directly at the sun" as they take in as much information about their surroundings as possible.

Could you please name one non-food product in America that a typical consumer could buy that doesn't subsidize corporate shareholders? Name one thing the average American can buy that contributes to gainful employment at the expense of corporate profit.

Where I'm sitting, the only manufacturing that exists in the USA is, for subassemblies or components that are purchased by larger companies on a contract basis, and manufactured by lower-middle class citizens. Boeing and GE is an example. And the reason Boeing buys domestically is only because they have to in order to limit their liability, reduce labor costs, and protect their IP. If the America you're looking for existed, Boeing would happily pay twice as much for labor to make components in house. If that America existed your television would be made here too, by people who weren't being subsidized themselves by Food Stamps.

There are no consumer commodity manufacturers in the USA who provide gainful employment without significant consideration towards corporate profit. There is basically nothing at Wal-Mart that you can buy that is made in the USA by people who are living in financial comfort. That's just not how late stage capitalism works.

To answer your question; it helps to explain what the upgrade process entails.

In the case of Linux DKMS updates: DKMS is re-compiling your installed kernel modules to match the new kernel. Sometimes a kernel update will also update the system compiler. In that instance it can be beneficial for performance or stability to have all your existing modules recompiled with the new version of the compiler. The new kernel comes with a new build environment, which DKMS uses to recompile existing kernel modules to ensure stability and consistency with that new kernel and build system.

Also, kernel modules and drivers may have many code paths that should only be run on specific kernel versions. This is called 'conditional compilation' and it is a technique programmers use to develop cross platform software. Think of this as one set of source code files that generates wildly different binaries depending on the machine that compiled it. By recompiling the source code after the new kernel is installed, the resulting binary may be drastically different than the one compiled by the previous kernel. Source code compiled on a 10 year old kernel might contain different code paths and routines than the same source code that was compiled on the latest kernel.

Compiling source code is incredibly taxing on the CPU and takes significantly longer when CPU usage is throttled. Compiling large modules on extremely slow systems could take hours. Managing hardware health and temperatures is mostly a hardware level decision controlled by firmware on the hardware itself. That is usually abstracted away from software developers who need to be able to be certain that the machine running their code is functional and stable enough to run it. This is why we have "minimum hardware requirements."

Imagine if every piece of software contained code to monitor and manage CPU cooling. You would have software fighting each other over hardware priorities. You would have different systems for control, with some more effective and secure than others. Instead the hardware is designed to do this job intrinsically, and developers are free to focus on the output of their code on a healthy, stable system. If a particular system is not stable, that falls on the administrator of that system. By separating the responsibility between software, hardware, and implementation we have clear boundaries between who cares about what, and a cohesive operating environment.

This, 100%.

I'd like to add my reasoning for a similar failure of an HP Proliant server I encountered.

Sometimes hardware can fail during long uptime and not become a problem until the next reboot. Consider a piece of hardware with 100 features. During typical use, the hardware may only use 50 of those features. Imagine one of the unused features has failed. This would not cause a catastrophic failure during typical use, but on startup (which rarely occurs) that feature is necessary and the system will not boot without it. If it could, it could still perform it's task... because the damaged feature is not needed. But it can't get past the boot phase, where the feature is required.

Tl;dr the system actually failed months ago and the user didn't notice because the missing feature was not needed again until the next reboot.

To charge a 57,000 watt tesla with an 800w consumer solar panel would take 71 hours of sunlight. There is not 24 hours of sunlight in a single day. This also is not considering the battery management which heats the battery passively. So it would take a week to charge a Tesla with equipment that you could carry inside the car.

The battery in a model X is 57,000 watts. To charge that with an 800 watt consumer grade wind turbine would take 71 hours. Try again.

You find another car and use a center punch on the gas tank. Drain it into a container and fuel whatever you want with it.

You'll be charging a 57kw model X for AT LEAST an entire day using solar panels that would barely fit in the trunk.

My concerns are the computerization of vehicles in general. The issue is not entirely with the telemetry itself, as you frame it. My issue is "what happens when the telemetry is not available?" You, and perhaps your friend, seem to be framing the problem as though the concern is that the car is filled with "spyware." My issue is that the car is filled with "DRM" from the manufacturer. When I buy a car, I expect to own that car entirely, forever. If I wanted to rent the right to someone else's car... I'd lease a car.

Musk touts the CyberTruck as "the perfect armageddon vehicle" but if you have no cell phone service how do you charge the truck? What if Tesla disappears, or GCP is down, or WW3 actually happens and the datacenters go dark? Can you operate the vehicle? What if the power goes out because... Armageddon. How do you fuel the vehicle?

What if Musk sees what I said about him on social media and accuses me of violating the TOS? Will he disable my vehicle remotely? I've seen this in the real world when a machine shop missed it's payment to Haas.

In a real armageddon, my 1997 shitbox would still function. My 2013 F150 would function right up until the EMP hit. A 2025 EV probably would not make it to a fueling source within 24 hours after the power goes out.

Watching these two behemoths wrestle over the future of a space we all share, and wondering if they will need to loop in regulators on one side or another, convinces me that we shouldn't have gifted all of our digital infrastructure to just 2 companies. Inlcuding our economy, healthcare, government, and civil infrastructure. We've put all our eggs into only a couple of very greedy, impossible to audit baskets. We've really done this all to ourselves. We've raced ourselves all the way to the bottom.

I understand the idea behind it and am still kinda chewing on the scope of it all. It will probably break some enterprise applications and cause some help desk or group policy/profile headaches for some.

It would be nice to know when a site is probing the local network. But by the same token, here is Google once again putting barriers on self sufficiency and using them to promote their PaaS goals.

They'll gladly narc on your self hosted application doing what it's supposed to do, but what about the 23 separate calls to Google CDN, ads, fonts, ect that every website has your browser make?

I tend to believe the this particular functionality is no longer of any use to Google, which is why they want to deprecate it to raise the barrier of entry for others.

Just looked this up to see an example of the behavior described. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SlUlENAggE

As a side note, BeamNG.Drive has the most accurate throttle response and audio response of any driving game I've ever tried. You can almost feel the car pull vacuum (or build boost).

Considering how terrible Android and ChromeOS and GCP is in every conceivable way, I'm surprised Google even has time to quantify the quality of Microsoft products.

It really starts getting good at 15:00 when he starts losing packets.

About time. Where the hell has this guy been? Guy makes hundreds of billions of dollars off the backs of working Americans and then leaves to donate all that American money to India in the form of public toilets under the guise of philanthropy. Meanwhile the country that made him a billionaire is literally falling to a fascist coup.

Seriously, just screw off. We needed you 3 months ago. We'll call you when it's time for your day in court at Nuremburg 2.0.

Is this feigned incompetence. Perhaps a cry for help, or a calculated disclosure?

I can't imagine anyone who would make the mistakes this guy makes, yet here he is; freely using his computer in clear view of a reporter with a camera.

There are images from the user's screen, with him on the photograph using the application, showing the chats from the app reproduced verbatim (forwarded) to a GMail account.

The article states that "at least one line of code must've been added" to support such a feature, which I believe to be an honest and accurate assessment.

Are we supposed to believe that a book which teaches people how to be "programmers" without writing any code was actually written by a human author?

This.

I'd be concerned purchasing a book from a "programmer" who claims to teach people how to code without code. Kinda sounds like an "author" who publishes books without writing books.

He should probably be investigated. He's giving off major "Russian Asset" vibes.

I support this. Especially the Google selling Chrome / Chromium part. If it's so important, then Google should relinquish (cede) control over it to the community, and just keep writing the checks.

Honestly, I have no compassion for Apple or Google. I'd be willing to endure a lot of headaches in the name of costing those two companies influence over our society.

I keep seeing people saying what the government can and can not do. Most of the things that I've been told it "cannot do" it clearly "has been doing".

You seem so alarmed by my proposition to nationalize a private company. Would you have been so alarmed if the government were punishing people for crimes without due process?

In the 2000s the American Government released GPS to everyone. This prevented unnecessary constellations of commercial satellites from companies like TomTom and Garmin which would have polluted orbit and complicated future space missions.

The US Government should nationalize Starlink and provide all Americans with internet service. It's the only way satellite internet makes sense.

> "My general conclusion is that any story that you want to tell about these tools being very transformative, needs to contend with the fact that at least two years after [the introduction of AI chatbots], they've not made a difference for economic outcomes."

I'm someone who tries to avoid AI tools. But this paper is literally basing its whole assessment off of two things; wages and hours. This is a disingenuous assertion.

Lets assume that I work 8 hours per day. If I am able to automate 1h of my day with AI, does that mean I get to go home 1 hour early? No. Does that mean I get an extra hour of pay? No.

So the assertion that there has been no economic impact assumes that the AI is a separate agent that would normally be paid in wages for time. That is not the case.

The AI is an augmentation for an existing human agent. It has the potential to increase the efficiency of a human agent by n%. So we need to be measuring the impact that is has on effectiveness and efficiency. It will never offset wages or hours. It will just increase the productivity for a given wage or number of hours.

> As a designer, I value the experience product I create provides to the users. And this was not even a bad experience; it was actually harmful.

$229 per year on a closed source product and this is the level of quality you can expect.

You can have all the respect for users in the world, but if you write downright hazardous code then you're only doing them a disservice. What happened to all the metered internet plans you blasted for 3 months? Are you going to make those users whole?

Learning from and owning your mistake is great and all, but you shouldn't be proud or gloating about this in any way, shape, or form. It is a very awkward and disrespectful flex on your customers.

Using a Humvee I'd be concerned about the weight and the unnecessary rotating mass of the geared hubs.

I think it's perfect! I've fantasized about getting an old Nissan Hardbody, stuffing the bed with batteries and putting 2 overvoted forklift motors under the hood.

This is basically a reliable, commercially viable version of that concept.