I know this doesn't work for most subscribers to mass media culture, but I'm right there with you. Personally I kind of hate celebrity as a social phenomenon, and I love seeing an amazing talented set and then getting to talk with the musician afterward. I don't give Live Nation my money.
Have you somehow sourced unsubsidized inference? Isn't all of this built on the false economy of a handful of very large vendors trying to capture you?
>5. A majority of teens use AI chatbots. Roughly two-thirds of U.S. teens ages 13 to 17 (64%) say they ever use an AI chatbot, according to a fall 2025 survey.
>6. A growing share of U.S. workers say at least some of their work is done with AI. That share has risen from 16% in 2024 to 21% in a September 2025 survey.
>8. Younger adults are more likely than older Americans to be aware of and use AI.
so, uh, thanks for proving my point?
also, I don't live in the US (thank G-d!), and we don't have that particular kulturkampf here. it is as foreign to us as your plastic straw debates.
>Worse: it's a conversation killer. There's nothing to respond to. Your wall of text suppresses dialogue. They can't reply, can't push back, can't clarify. It's a weapon disguised as helpfulness.
This is slop. What it's saying is not even true, it's just punchy.
Right, recent youtube solo lecture vlogs ripe with these clever punchy finishers. Annoying. I know people aren’t smart enough to actually be that witty ad hoc. Makes the whole thing feel fake af
I don't think so, no. I'm asking if it is a good idea to ask the government to delegate the addressing of the problem to the platforms.
For instance, the government could provide privacy-preserving age verification and mandate that those platforms use it to check the age, and at the same time not ban VPNs.
Maybe (I am asking) it would make it harder for kids to access social media and porn in general, but it would not make it impossible (they could use a VPN). But I don't think we need to make it impossible for social media and I don't think we can make it impossible for porn:
* For social media, we just need it annoying enough that most kids don't bother using them. I feel like social media are a problem for kids mostly when (almost) all kids have access, because it is difficult to explain to your kid why they should be left apart.
* For porn, there are many ways to access it, it's impossible to entirely block it. And I am not convinced that it is a good thing to make it super illegal. Making it slightly less accessible so that it's not one URL away from the kids, though, may not be so terrible?
We do that kind of compromise for many other things: it's impossible to prevent kids from smoking cigarettes. Still we try to prevent it. I feel like sometimes it's okay to compromise, instead of fighting for all or nothing.
This is (imo) the most valid argument for Tailwind: the UI semantics of "hero" "card" etc aren't put in CSS, they're put in the module. Modules are typically designed for this encapsulation, and CSS was not.
I don't personally support this surveillance, but that isn't what the articles says. It says they will be "scanning for suspects from above." And later quotes the Met making reference to 'intelligence'. So conceivably they could have information about the plans of specific individuals at this event.
It doesn't matter what the article says. There is no penalty for lying and no incentive to be honest. The media exists to broadcast their lies at scale.
Back in the 2000s, upon arrest it was pretty common practice for cops to page through your phone contacts to see who you knew. I don't know if Cellebrite was used back then or if it was manual but the inferences were made and the point was to map out suspects' social networks to find suppliers and upstream orchestrators they had in common.
They're doing the same thing here but lying about it. By capturing all faces associated with whatever protest is going on and mapping them to known identities (because everyone has to provide ID to do anything nowadays), they gather intelligence on entire groups of dissidents. The crowd ARE the suspects.
By the time you're hearing about it in the news they've already been doing it for years. I wouldn't dare set foot near any anti-Israel rally myself, suspecting the NYPD has been field-testing this for a while and activist NGOs like Canary Mission explicitly performing such recon and mapping themselves. All those DHS counter-terrorism grants weren't spent exclusively on MRAPs and bomb disposal robots. That money trickled down to a lot of interesting places.
>Trump fits this moment well. He is a salesman at core, and Larry Ellison is too. That helps explain why AI infrastructure is an easy political product. Selling AI today is easier than selling Oracle databases in the 1980s.
I feel like the author (and perhaps many here on HN) are on a different planet than almost everyone I interact with.
> repair requires more labor than recreating the entire product
It requires specialized and local labor. For products you can ship back to the assembly line, this can sometimes work. If you need a local technician, on the other hand, because the assembly line is in China or the product is heavy, yeah, it very well may be that there is no niche where repairs aren’t a material fraction of a new product.
The draft term is 'computational load'[0], which is the focus of the L3 essential action in that press release.
NERC's concern appears to be computational load cutting. In 2024 for instance, 60 data centers in NoVa cut 1500Mw of load in a matter of seconds[1]. Dominion reported 70GW of large load deliver points, with 40GW in new requests that are 'vast majority' data centers.
40GW is approximately enough to power about 30 million homes (at 1000 kwh/month).
reply