For example, nuclear power is frequently sold as a plant that just sits there churning out zero-emissions power for 50 years from a few tons of super energy dense fuel (such as from the above commenter). Without acknowledging that fuel needs to be enriched from intensive and environmentally destructive mining of raw uranium. Which comes with risks to workers and possible contamination of groundwater to nearby communities, etc. Or the carbon impacts of the massive amounts of concrete/steel/etc that are required to build the plant.

Otherwise it's just special pleading to apply a different standard that exaggerates the negative externalities of solar.

- If you're a job seeker, most of the jobs are fake for pretend growth optics. - If you're a senior level or executive you're targeted non-stop by sales people telling you about "the conversations they're having ..." - If you're looking for actual thought leadership or interesting information, you're bombarded with random tik-tok style videos, totally contrived stories and "lessons" to how ordering at Starbucks is like managing cloud infrastructure

It's turned into a completely artificial and useless community because Microsoft chased the same growth and engagement metrics as Facebook did, now no one considers it to be a place for serious discussion.

It doesn't require a criminally minded 3rd party coming onto someone's "safe" property to do something horrible with a sawzall and/or oxy-acetylene cutting torch.

Would you like to discuss that point as a fellow professional in the field?

Using Grok is therefore a supply chain risk and it's not nearly good enough to offset that risk.

The bottleneck for building some AI datacentres and switching them on is electricity, sure, but that's not what drives growth. There also needs to be demand for the additional capacity; people need to be waiting for capacity to catch up so they can do the useful work that grows [society|GDP|something] that they aren't doing right now.

There's also very likely to be diminishing returns from additional capacity if we're near or over the limit of productive use. And there's the opportunity cost of what could have been done with that [money|land|electricity].

This is a much more complicated system than "people say they need more AI -> build datacenter -> power datacenter -> magical growth!"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_Innovation_Unit

They could obviously have foreseen the current failures in 2015. It is irrelevant, since the Senate Armed Services Committee and the Generals who routinely give theatrical performances for the cameras want the big toys for their districts.

The goal in Iran is also not to win but to keep the Gulf monarchies, the EU, Japan and China down by means of a low intensity forever war.

It’s better for server farms where engineers can customize and tune for an architecture like this.

There have been some cards that use RAM as a storage device. They were never popular because having to set it up as a disk had very limited use cases.

> Intent understanding: GPT-5.6 can better infer the user’s underlying goal and intended level of work without you specifying every step. Continue to state important constraints, approval boundaries, and success criteria explicitly.

> Original image detail: GPT-5.6 preserves the original dimensions of images sent with original or auto detail instead of resizing them to a patch budget or pixel-dimension limit.

> Use shorter prompts: In internal evaluations, replacing long, explicit system prompts with minimal prompts improved scores by roughly 10–15%, while reducing total tokens by 41–66% and cost by 33–67%.

> Avoid generic brevity instructions: GPT-5.6 is more sensitive than GPT-5.5 to instructions such as “Be concise,” “Keep it short,” or “Use minimal text.”

> Control warmth: GPT-5.6 does not become meaningfully better when prompted to be broadly friendlier or more empathetic.

Seems like money well spent.

I like to think about how providing 4-week paid parental leave would cost $2 billion annually and actually help US families. Meanwhile we have spent over $100 billion on this war.

Care to detail this?

You're fully free to use and try anything and without caring about what others think is right

Boy, was it controversial. I could not believe how hard some people were pushing back in the comments.

Quoting from myself there:

"When you write your own words, you are forging your own voice. It is distinctive, conveys your unique world view, and connects with others in a way that is specific to you alone.

If you use an AI tool to write for you instead, you lose all of that."

That seems blindingly self-evident to me, but apparently a lot of folks disagree.

Something else I said:

"Writing is hard because thinking is hard. When you write, you forge your thoughts, distinctions, mental models and even feelings into the clarity of precision that the written word demands. When you outsource your writing to an AI tool, you lose more than you know."

I guess a lot of people don't want to bother with all that.