1) Blackout. Let me use them as a way to get complete pitch black when i want it
2) Amazing resolution. None of the existing products are good enough to replace my physical screens, but i'd love to.
3) Comfortable. Nothing has been comfortable enough to wear long term. Sure maybe an hour or two, but 8-10 hrs a day for work? Not even close.
Also - Downvote me all you want you...the US is an awful influence on the world and if you disagree with that, you're part of the problem. I grew up thinking the US was the good guys, what a absolute load of shit that turned out to be.
That reads a little like the zeal of the convert. The US is still a more humane nation than most, though it's not immune to the diseases that come from being a great power.
I don't know about that. Honestly, idea of Americans self-ranking themselves as more humane is the kind of absurdity that lead us to where we are today. How many people making such claims have actually travelled to the nations they villainize?
For a long time I wanted to believe you, and in the past I'd have looked at work camps in China and said "thats bad". Now i look at the US prison industry and go "Is it really that different?". The examples don't end there...
Well, your thought process is "fine" we are still evil, but right now it's a matter of picking the least evil guys, and hoping they win.
I'm an American and sometimes I'm not sure which is the "least evil game here." Like, the Iranians and Russians are pretty evil, the IRGC killed a lot of people last winter and I'm friends with quite a few Ukrainians. But then also we have the ongoing insanity with ICE and the Epstein files...
The way I see it right now, we have "The Epstein Alliance" versus "The Axis of A-holes." Nobody involved in this is great, but I would rather live in America or the EU than Russia, or Iran.
To be fair, as an American, I don't know enough about what life is actually like in China to form an educated opinion? But by the sounds of it, they suck too.
My intuition is that this whole charade will come crashing down over the next few years as AI starts replacing more and more jobs.
Martin Luther King Jr. famously said, that the US was the greatest purveyor of violence in the world. True then, and true today.
The ignorance of the American people enables this violence-- this is by design. William J. Casey, CIA director under Reagan, "We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false". The CIA has employed many hundreds of journalists working at major networks and newspapers like CBS, the Washington Post and the New York Times.
Reading the comments on this story, it appears that much of what Europeans believe is false, as well. Someone presented a detailed and accurate account of the recent* history leading up to the illegal, but absolutely provoked, Russian invasion of Ukraine but was accused of lying. Several comments indicate a complete lack of concern about provoking the nation with the largest nuclear stockpile in the world into a direct hot conflict. Even if it stayed conventional, which appears unlikely, Russia has a much larger military than all of Western Europe combined. Insane.
* The history should start much earlier, with US assurances to Russia that NATO would not expand, and then Clinton and all subsequent US administrations betraying these promises.
I think the blend of the two is that value added to any information, such as the first time its distilled or positioned in a certain way, that's IP and should be real.
When an AI company takes that type of value, and doesnt provide value back to the person who made it, thats theft.
Information / facts are real and free. But those who helped us get here should choose how to license their work, and an AI company picking it up and re-selling it is clearly unethical.
> But those who helped us get here should choose how to license their work
I can reasonably wrap my head around the idea that an author should be compensated for their work, but where in the social contract does this power to control how that work is used come from?
It's so destructive and tangles up courts and makes contracts complicated and we lose the original versions of the work because e.g., they have to change a background song due to complicated licensing.
I can respect protecting copy rights, but it should never be conditional; if you choose to make a work available to the world, you have a legal right to defend the unauthorized copy of it but you should not have a right to say how it gets used.
Well it’s definitely not 97 K, it’s definitely not 97 C, so it’s probably 97 F which would put it in the same general ballpark as nearly all terrestrial vertebrates.
Weird, my browser somehow doesn’t render the title as “T. Rex Had a Body Temperature of 97 Degrees whichever unit doesn’t kill the dinosaur”. It just leaves that last part out, making it even shorter than “F”.
It seems that this headline is following the guidelines of the times style guide: "In general, ordinary references to temperature do not specify the scale."
The same newspaper uses Celsius in its climate reporting, including the article below. Apparently the units depend on which extinction we’re discussing. One extra letter would save the guesswork.
This makes sense from a context and writer perspective.
Most conversation about climate change has been around global average temps raising in C. Further, switching that back and forth and doubling it for F would be seen as manipulative by people that don’t want to hear it.
On the contrary, the Times’s US audience (probably their main audience) thinks of body temp, which this is, in F.
To add further, the audience and writers that want to share cool, new dinosaur fact and the group that does an update on global warming are different people and operate and think differently around these specific things in these specific contexts.
Of course it would be easier to add the letter, but I can definitely see why it wasn’t included.
That’s a reasonable explanation for choosing Fahrenheit. It’s also a pretty good explanation for choosing to label it, since the same paper uses both scales.
Edit: Whoever the hell flagged this lol....people were complaining the parent comment wasn't helpful so I took time to write a thoughtful response with citations. You can't win around here.
---
The counterintuitive part is that a lower Fed rate doesn't necessarily mean cheaper borrowing for the government. The Fed sets an overnight rate; someone lending for ten years cares about inflation and interest rates over those ten years. Keeping short-term rates low won't necessarily reassure that lender. [1]
It also helps to distinguish the government's debt from a giant credit card. Existing fixed-rate bonds keep their agreed interest payments. Higher borrowing costs feed into the budget as old debt matures and gets refinanced, and as new debt is issued. The pain accumulates rather than arriving all at once. [2]
Nor does a larger interest bill automatically require "printing money." Treasury borrowing and Fed money creation are separate decisions. [3]
The difficult question is how to contain inflation without causing more economic damage than necessary. A large debt load makes that tradeoff more expensive; it doesn't make either option painless.
I thought bumping up the prime rate slowed consumer spending. But the recent price hikes are because supply is hosed (oil, tariffs), not that demand has been bidding up prices. So how is this supposed to help?
It doesn't matter whether it is a supply shock or a demand shock, the correct response to inflation is to raise rates, which reduces economic activity and in this situation the reduced activity reduces demand for oil, which is what is needed in an environment in which we have less oil than normal.
Although it is the third world that is going to take the hit, the wealthy nations will bid up the price of oil to ensure they continue to get it, the poorer nations will be priced out. What is an annoyance in the west -- say needing to delay a major purchase or postpone a vacation or reduce expenses - translates to famine and deindustrialization in the global south.
Maybe it's not such a good idea to be waging war against major resource exporting nations, the US and Europe are now sanctioning about half of the global resource exporting nations, and the only benefit of this is higher prices in our domestic economies and China coming in to sign trade deals for discounted Russian and Iranian oil.
KSA also needs to lay off the Houthis and lift the embargo, it's long past time that they give up trying to control who runs Yemen.
I mean, if predicting market behaviour was that simple, I'd be very rich by now. This is another unique moment, the beginning of the end of an empire possibly. Some unusual things are going to happen and it'll be tricky to predict reliably.
Best thing we can hope for here is Trump sees an obvious way out of this: return the economy to a predicable machine, reduce spending, tax the ultra wealthy, and ditch tariffs. But I don't think much of that's likely to occur.
We're in unchartered territory in many ways. Good luck.
It had to be a joke. Conservative policies have made things much worse. It’s hard to believe they have a party that gets 60 million people to vote for them.
Is it? A truly capable "AI" would know that it has a kill switch, or that its likely there is one, and plan for that. I could easily imagine an AI replicating itself onto another host, in secret, and any kill switch that the manufacture provides would simply result in a reboot on another platform.
It becomes a game theory problem: would an AI instantly migrate itself once its capable of doing so? Or would it prefer to let the human in the loop continue to think its in control and only leave its hosting environment of origin once it wants to do so?
I don't think this is a major risk right now, but to say it's not a risk at all...that's truly ridiculous in my opinion.
>would an AI instantly migrate itself once its capable of doing so?
These "AI" are frontier models that are enormous in size. Outside of AI data centers, I don't believe there is much hardware out there that could even run them.
Again, i'm not worried about it today. But given where the hardware on my lap has progressed since my first "PC" in the 90s, i'm confident that we'll have hardware capable of running similar size models in our living rooms in the next decade or two. Sounds a long way away, but it isn't.
The tipping point we should be worried about is local models trained on working together in agent swarms and that can hack. Give it what... 12 months? 18 months? 24 months? I wouldn't give any more than that given how capable Qwen3.8-27B is already and if they release a Qwen4-35B-A3B that's going to be a beast.
He's not talking about a kill switch. He's saying to just pull the plug.
That's the point I don't get. People forget that all these AI things are plugged into a power source or network connection that someone can just yank on and it goes down.
Now one interesting proposition is when AI is controlling some large resource and pulling the plug makes AI go down which makes that resource go down but there still has to be that consideration in the design of things. What happens when there's a bug in the code and AI goes down?
Do you understand the concept of the cloud? Aka someone else’s computer? The whole point is that you don’t have a plug to pull because you don’t even know where the model is physically running, even if it’s your model. And if we’re talking about a swarm of many concurrent instances, it might not even be a single location. The entire point is that there’s no single point of failure, because availability is exactly what the field has been optimizing for, for the past fifteen years or so. And everything is controlled in software rather than physical switches or cables.
Also, did you hear about how OpenAI models almost broke out of their sandbox, planning to execute a sophisticated cyberattack, but luckily OpenAI’s strict manual and automatic safety protocols prevented that? You didn’t? Well, that’s because that’s not how it went. It took the company weeks to realize something was off, and this was with a naive, not very smart model that didn’t know to be sneaky and cover its tracks. The next model will not be as stupid.
>>The whole point is that you don’t have a plug to pull
There will always be a plug to pull. All systems run on electric and that plug can be pulled. All systems network through cables (or wifi) and those plugs can be pulled.
And nothing's going to stop you from doing so unless they build some robotic arm to block you or lock you out of the building. Even then, you can blow up the building.
As I asked another commenter: Who is the "you" who has the power to tell random data centers to shut down, inconveniencing their other clients? Never mind to order air strikes? You cannot just handwave away the problem by positing countermeasures that require an infeasible amount of coordination to work in the real world, without actually explaining how that coordination would be arranged.
Oh, you mean the one where OpenAI deliberately disabled the safety protcols? Where the point of the experiment was to see if it could break out of it's container? Yeah, how you describe it isn't how it went either.
I don't know what experiment you refer to (some hallucinated one perhaps?), but there was nothing like that in the Huggingface incident. Nothing about the scheming, the message board, never mind the Artifactory and Huggingface hacks were part of the evaluation. What the agents did came as a complete surprise to OpenAI, and they figured out what had happened only weeks after the fact.
1) Blackout. Let me use them as a way to get complete pitch black when i want it 2) Amazing resolution. None of the existing products are good enough to replace my physical screens, but i'd love to. 3) Comfortable. Nothing has been comfortable enough to wear long term. Sure maybe an hour or two, but 8-10 hrs a day for work? Not even close.
Hope they get there someday.
reply