The only counterexample I can think of is In-N-Out, which is always packed with customers and always has a large and very busy kitchen staff.

Sample size of six jobs total, three per person.

I'm very much not seeing the problems other people are assuming, like tons of LLM spam on Reddit being treated as fact by ChatGPT. Instead it really does seem, the more I use these tools, the better they are at surfacing real experiences written about by real people.

The other day though I was seeing how well it could pull details of its own conversations with me. It often does this pretty well for broad strokes of things - it remembers, largely, what cameras I have and use when I ask photography questions. It's never made things up here, but it does forget details, such as whether I've bought something or am just considering it. However, when I asked it for a specific interaction I thought I remembered, it gladly went along with my false memory and provided an affirmative answer. It was the first time I'd been caught in a serious hallucination with a frontier model (Sol High on the web chat interface) in a long time.

The linked article from 1973 is very strange to read in 2026 and honestly it's hard to take seriously. It seems to actually argue that China and India should stop developing because development encourages dependence on energy. It says that machines are slaves that modern people are required to master?

The speed equity discussed in the linked paper has actually increased significantly as well. More people have cars, and more people can afford plane trips, and bicycle infrastructure is better all over the nation (the world, probably) compared to 1973. I agree with the general principle that cities should encourage diverse development so more people can choose not to use cars if they want, or if they don't have access to a car. In the paper, this would be achieved by somehow state limiting the amount of energy people would be able to consume per capita. I'm glad that world didn't come to pass.

Basically it sounds like the point of view of the article is that at some point the state should tell people they're not allowed to try to make a certain process more efficient in terms of time or resources, because that might drive demand for better productivity, which would be bad because it drives us further from nature and community. Some of the points intersect with beliefs I hold, but I strongly oppose this way of going about it.

http://www.stat.yale.edu/~jtc5/papers/CommonAncestors/Nature...

For reference I scored ~C1 in German years ago (testdaf 4/4/5/4) and at that level there's no question at all about the vast gulf between me and an educated native speaker.

There's a lot of excellent projects here.

Also, people in your community probably own businesses that advertise or sell directly on a Meta platform. That's money affecting many things you interact with online and offline.

Also also, you describe yourself as an ordinary person but say you have no presence on any of the largest social media or messaging platforms. I think that's fairly far out of the ordinary.

I imagine everyone who is fully involved with the carplay ecosystem feels equally as strongly in the other direction and has for a long time.

But even assuming the data center was only used for AI model training, more or less everyone who uses any electronics now either uses generative AI directly themselves or uses services whose employees use generative AI at work to create those services. AI is extremely popular and widespread now among many large and diverse groups of people.

I still have a bit of reticence toward admitting that I find some books hard or haven't finished them. I found the Iliad enthralling and the Odyssey very good, but basically any other English epic poetry or drama is such a grind and I've given up many times.