First of all, looking past the objectively wrong phrasing (computers can, and clearly do make decisions), can computers be accountable? This might not be so cut and dry as to instantly say no. This one will keep ethics, philosophy and legal practitioners busy for some time. It's certainly not going to be decided in HN comment or a blog post.

Second - while the AI labs have shown utter incompetence in properly sandboxing their agents, intent is still important. I don't think the labs deliberately meant for their agents to hack this or that. Should they be accountable? Yes but I wouldn't go as far as saying this is deliberate.

The next point is about cherry picking some "doomsday" scenarios like AI ending humanity and then blaming this on the reader (!) for paying a subscription. - People pay because AI is USEFUL, and massively so. You could just as easily pick incredible achievements propelled by AI, in mathematics, software, reverse engineering, role playing. Unlike the "end is nigh" ideas, these advancements are actually real, and they are happening right now.

And last, the author says AI labs can just stop the agents at any time. I agree there needs to be better discovery and mitigation, sandboxing and monitoring. But when you run a billion agents, it's always going to be a numbers game and there will always going to be some challenge in fully containing all breaches. This will only get more difficult with better models, because they're getting smarter and they know how to work around things, sometimes better than we do.

So what's the solution here? There are options, but they're all tradeoffs. I hope we get better at this and maybe working on cutting edge models should breed some new best practices which were once only reserved for defense tech.

So it was a sign to stop the fast forward and get ready to watch the movie.

Either way it was honestly pretty fun. It was simple, cozy and slow, not in a bad way. When you got together to watch a movie with friends or family, it was the moment when anticipation was building up.

None of that exists with streaming.

I honestly don't think they need to fix their prices, and it's possible that selling to consumers is a secondary market for them compared to datacenters, like Nvidia selling GPUs to gamers. We know that's not where the money is.

Seeing some companies actually exit the consumer market is evidence for this.

This already exists, in several tiers, depending on what you can afford to run (in terms of VRAM).

Deepseek V Flash 0731 is already good enough for many things.

The only issue with relying on local models is when you need them to prompt other models, and you might need to offload or switch models constantly which adds significant overhead.

But when it all works, its truly awe inspiring.

The quote is definitely about Hamas, PIJ and other militant groups in Gaza.

To reiterate, I don't support Ben Gvir. But I also strongly oppose disinformation which seems to be the case here.

This is absolutely true but people don't want to hear about this. Qatar is the main propagator of many student bodies in the US. This is how you get students saying "gloabalize intifada", "death to the USA”, occupying buildings, etc.

Qatar has a long, well funded strategy for influence in the west which is pretty much their only leverage.

In addition they are the main funders of Hamas, alongside hosting the Hamas leaders in fancy hotels in Doha for many, many years.

Besides stopping cheaters, in almost all conceivable cases, security doesn't make a game better.

Some of these actors also put a lot of money into campuses in the west, so when you're done watching some terrible propaganda, you can join a local club and find your way to more people getting angry at misinformation. This is how we get stuff like "globalize intifada" and students "occupying" buildings.

I wish this was just hyperbole, but really, go check for yourself what kind of money state actors put into schools and universities in the west, and why.

Brew and other MacOS package managers are a testament to this. Package managers crafted with care around the user needs is always going to be the way to go.

This highlights something that's been a creeping issue for at least a decade if not longer: both MacOS and Windows are not built around the user anymore, for different reasons.

Windows is easy to see, it is now an OS as a service where the user is exploited right below the comfort threshold that will make them abandon the system (although for many this threshold was crossed long ago).

For Apple it's not as immediately obvious, but their forced obsolescence through constantly shifting requirements and tooling means that nothing lasts very long in the Mac ecosystem, you always have to upgrade, as a consumer and as a developer, rebuild, refactor, push updates and eventually be forced to replace your hardware. So you are basically caught in a neverending game of catchup and Apple is always a step ahead of you, by design.

Booting up almost any flavor of Linux is just leagues ahead in terms of simply letting you use your computer tending to your needs.

First, personal flying vehicles are definitely not going to be a common mode of transportation. If and when this happens, it will be for ultra rich, select few people, effectively replacing a private helicopter. We don't have the infrastructure, regulation or technology to have millions of people buzzing around in their astro-ford like the fifth element - this is still very much science fiction.

Second, scooters and bikes need infrastructure, which in 99.99% of the US, is not made for this. In fact, current infrastructure is very much hostile to bicycles and scooters, so in order for this to work, there's going to have to be a massive investment in new infrastructure all over the US. Is this very likely? I wouldn't say so.

The US locked itself into using cars through massive, expensive infrastructure and culture and I don't see this changing easily.

The population growth slowing might be true, but it's still growing, and there's still a profit to be made there.

The new factories are going to replace manufacturing in foreign countries. I'm not sure the effects on supply will be drastic. It's just a matter of building cars domestically, avoiding tariffs and securing domestic pipelines.

Finally, asking these corporations to "look 20 years ahead" instead of maximizing short term profits, is a common tradeoff that they are all aware of. Currently, short term gains is what's being preferred in almost every industry. I doubt any board members will vote to leave money on the table for long term benefits. More money now always wins.

Like many others, I miss it dearly. But I also don't think keeping it on life support is the solution. The old web is gone, it's sad, but it was a different time and you can't bring back the past.

I say this even though I have an affinity and a modest collection of old hardware and software. I literally see some of this tech every day in my home. Nostalgia is fun, but still, you can't live in the past.

The only way to get something similar to the old web back, is very unpractical. Reduce bandwidth so videos are no longer the main content form; nullify profit from polarizing content; give people an easier interface for typing or participating in forums (touch is still awful for text), etc. In other words: it won't happen. The old online experience is a fun memory, but there's no going back.

Even if some curious minds got past the stigma, they still had to have an actual reason to go online which for many people just didn't exist until e-commerce and social networks became a thing. And then they had to learn how to use computers. This still wasn't gatekeeping because literally anyone could put in a minimal effort and go online, but effort is the key word here.

It became truly effortless with smartphones and touch screens, but this also reduced interaction to likes and tweets, and users became content consumers to be exploited with ads. This is where we are today.

Either way the writing is on the wall, and has been for a while.

It can be summarized in a short sentence: The cost comes from being always prepared with teams and equipment, and few privately insured riders subsidizes everyone else, getting very high surprise bills - this can and should be a shared community tax which would effectively allow free ambulance rides to almost everybody.

It's an excellently written post though. I suspect people read this author for the experience, more so than actual information. I just wonder if they should just do prose and go wild with their skill instead of coating a few predictable facts with so many layers of color.