Prompt: Answer without searching the internet:

It already slurped "the internet". You can't seriously say it doesn't count!

1. Not today. November 2025. They don't make it clear.

1.1. One would expect that to be put in the title, when the article is written almost a year after that.

1.2. No, the article doesn't state that in the first paragraph. Posting in it full seem to be the only way to fend off lazy comments:

  In November 2025, Earth was buffeted by several massive eruptions of solar material that slammed into the magnetosphere.

2. It is unclear what is the source of the claim.

UPD: Commenter below found the source, but TFA doesn't make a good job of presenting that as a source of the 33 feet glitch claim, but rather posts another citation from it.

They should've just quote this and be done with it:

  During the storm main phase, an east–west elongated band of intense auroral brightness expanded equatorward, producing a horizontally extended strip of strong density gradients that favored the development of small-scale irregularities. These small-scale irregularities triggered pronounced amplitude scintillations (S4 > 0.5) and caused significant positioning errors exceeding 10 m—large enough to disrupt GNSS-dependent applications across CONUS for hours, particularly precision agriculture and autonomous transportation industries. [1]

4. The author has articles all over the topics. Everything is sensationalized.

5. Every presented link seem to have this awful Cloudflare js challenge.

Bad article overall.

P.S. Response to the false claim below - no, there's nothing about GPS in "the first 3 words of the article".

[1] https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2026GL12...

They probably were thinking about how that serves them as an ad, not about transparency, but still.

I say they should go one step further and somehow make it harder/inconvenient to turn it off (big tech is good at this already, so...); or, maybe, hide that option behind extra feature under premium subscription or something.

P.S. The comments are pure gold. They don't like they can't fake authorship and have the audacity to be indignant!

You spin up replica, upgrade it to the target engine version, ensure it's up to date and switch over. [1]

[1] https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonRDS/latest/UserGuide/USER_...

Since the update is done semi-automatically by the means of AWS RDS, does AWS takes any responsibility for that? Unless this use case is warned against in migration notes, I would think they ought to.

You may construct it back on retrieval, if you need it in results.

npm being npm.

Sounds like a complete nonsense, yet here we are.

   The term "piracy" is used by record companies to demonize sharing and cooperation by equating them to kidnaping, murder and theft.[1]

LLM doesn't seem to be keen to put in effort either!

Is this AGI?

Not that the project didn't have merit on itself (we're talking about proto-internet, basically), but its potential role in planning is exaggerated. If anything, it's a pitch before MVP.

The issues were very much political (denied funding speaks in favor of that), not computational. You can't solve those with math and transistors.

It also can be necessary.

In fact, Fred Brooks in The Mythical Man-Month, specifically in chapters 3 "The Surgical Team" and 4 "Aristocracy, Democracy, and System Design" explains why strong (even, maybe, authoritarian) central planning is imperative for large [software] projects.

Without proper mandate the work would be undermined constantly. Again, with regard to software projects (which with all accustomed with) a "Broken Ownership" article [0] [1] illustrates (among other things) the necessity of the mandate.

All in all, if you've been stripped of the mandate, lacking resources and your project is sabotaged in other ways, you don't need to look too far in the search of why it doesn't go as ...planned.

[0] https://blog.alexewerlof.com/p/broken-ownership

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37225397

In 1954 an executive order of 14 Oct 1954 reduced the amount of administrative personnel by 450 thousands.

The amount of metrics went down from 9 940 to 6 308 in 1954, to 3 081 in 1955, and to 1 780 in 1958.

Khrushchev moved most of the planning power from central planning institution to the regions and down to the factories and enterprises. What previously was strict targets from the center now became soft suggestions.

Article misses those basic things completely and instead goes into tangential theoretic topics and even goes to state things like that:

  central planners preferred to use the CIA’s analyses of certain Russian commodities rather than reports from local Party bosses

LLMs enables them to post (or, rather, paste) something, in an attempt to trick others into believing they do have something to say.

They think they sound smart now, because LLMs are "very much the “stupid person’s idea of an intelligent person”"[1]

So now we are flooded with stupid people's attempts to show us how smart they are.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49300763

It's like two parallel worlds, that exist in the same place at the same time, but somehow don't cross.

As many have said before:

  it's basically malicious compliance. They're supposed to be super annoying ... Instead of complying, they choose this obnoxious practice so they could continue ... monitoring every action a visitor does.

  You don't need a cookie banner to be allowed to create Cookies. You only need them if you're using them for something like tracking. [1]

  Regulators didn't enforce cookie banners. Cookie banners are a form of malicious compliance. When you complain about them, you are doing the lobbying work of ad companies for free. The correct solution is to just not spy on people, and the problem is that the EU didn't go far enough and just ban the behavior altogether. [2]

  Cookie pops are malicious compliance to regulations that legitimately protect consumers. You’ve cherry picked one bad side effect to throw out all the ways the EU is way ahead of anyone else in protecting consumers [3]

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38299135

[3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46552795