~"Speed doesn't matter unless you need it."

~"LLMs can be good, but if you don't use them properly™, then they become a crutch."

It's hard to deny that "cognitive offloading" via LLMs is becoming a more acute problem [0]. The intelligentsia were supposed to be immune.

[0] https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20260417-ai-chatbots-coul...

Look again! [0] It's a tagline for a photo that you overlooked. Please take a break and go outside.

[0] https://i.postimg.cc/XvW4pN8Q/image.png

I didn't remove anything.

It seems you're reading and responding to different discussions.

> Every single thing in the text you (inaccurately) quoted.

Your first sentence makes no sense. It's quoted directly from the Guardian article, not from me.

> it sounds like the point is to make sure each rally is allocated a separate area, and they don't deny permission outright.

FWIW, look at the next article I linked. You're really understating the restrictions for a public, outdoor venue. This is on brand with restrictive public use.

- No noise directed outwards

- no noise after 6PM

- confined to two lawns (that can't fit more than 3k people)

- no sound speakers

- no overnight rallies even if quiet

- leave no trash

- no food for others

- you're strongly advised to fill out a notification form if your group is larger than a dozen people

Which this?

They apparently moved the location, but protesting at the new location is still heavily restricted [0] with a dystopian narrative.

> In order to achieve the balance between the rights of those holding a rally and the rights and freedoms of others to go about their business we have put together this guidance and simple application process.

[0] https://www.london.gov.uk/who-we-are/city-halls-buildings-an...

>City Hall sits entirely on a private estate owned by a Kuwaiti investment company. Protesters are not allowed to gather without corporate permission.

It appears REALLY hard to step over jurisdictions.

I did find the PLO terrorist incident from 1985. The terrorists killed an American on a cruiseship, Achille Lauro. Reagan sent a fighter jet to intercept, escort, and force a landing in Italy for the commercial jet the terrorists were later flying on.

There are other examples like forcing downed flights in the hunt for Snowden, but it's super rare and ultimately unlikely.

I'm surprised it has zero mention of potential advantages of trapped ion despite being superior on stability windows, accuracy, and operating temps.

I also appreciate the disclosure about AI generated content, but this article gets too repetitive.

Wrong again. They're locals and overseas-born immigrants.

Nobody said "non-white" and it isn't even implied because a significant proportion -- 35-40% of Australian Permanent Residents (US green card equivalent) -- come from EU/"White" countries.

The suggestions above are consistent with my request for you to review the HN comment guidelines.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48252227

Well, I'm apparently not in the imagined conversation you're having. Seems insecure to pre-bake an out for a hypothetical.

Never rejected systemic racism exists, but calling everything racist without substance (and accusing people of ignoring system racism without support) erodes meaning.

I suggest reviewing the HN guidelines for comments. If you disagree with them, this forum may not be for you.

Even so, you're "having trouble" acknowledging a singular fact that calls a claim into question? Is two facts the magic number? Three? Why is one insufficient?

It'd be more effective to offer an actual reason.

You can't be serious.

How do you reconcile arguing it isn't "alarmism" and acknowledging the claims are "absurd"?

You're definitely trying to have it both ways on the issue of whether people have been guilty of promoting alarmism.

IMHO, the toxic chemicals comparison doesn't work.

For climate change, you have alternatives to raise people's quality of life more effectively and saying that you must prioritize fighting climate change over ... better healthcare, sanitation (avoidance of toxic chemicals!*), nutrition, workforce development, etc. is not really an easy sell because the other paths yield better ROI.

*Edit*

Not quite.

These affluent countries torture themselves with terrible energy transition projects that jack up prices for everyone at the cost of more efficient alternatives.

Healthcare, nutrition, education and other programs do vastly more for quality of life improvements for the poor.

That sounds high, not to be dreary, but given how easy it is to spam and roles having thousands of applicants.

There's about 10M in US tech jobs and the forecast for net job adds is +2% in 2026 so the number on a macro level checks out.

BTW, your perspective is bizarre.

Not sure where you're getting the idea that PhD candidate attrition is rare. Maybe at MIT where only 20% don't finish (within 10 years -- which is generous), but these are already pre-screened superstars. Most other places converge around 50%.

As for salaries, the median salary for CS PhDs outside academia is $180k. That means a lot are lower and probably aren't working at big tech with full comp pushing them above $300k. [0]

[0] https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf26312