You can find DDR4 at reasonable prices, assuming it's not DDR4 ECC, and assuming it's not a QNAP that will only boot with RAM from a very narrow window of compatibility (ask me how I know).
I think the solution is in adjusting our ways of life. Simpler living, smaller houses and more density, being able to walk and bike, shared common areas, increase health span, being able to live independently for longer, simpler hobbies, not needing so much stuff, etc.
Despite the hype cycle around humanoid robots it's unlikely that they'll advance enough to be capable of replacing many human workers in nursing homes and assisted-living facilities within our lifetimes. Expect to see lots of really sad stories about elder abuse and neglect because as a society we simply won't have the resources to adequately care for them all.
Paid by whom? That's the problem. The people with money won't be willing to pay more taxes to fund workers to care for a growing indigent elderly population. It's already causing shortages today and will only get worse.
it isn't just about money, it is about production. Even if the money is evenly spread, if there isn't enough production (because not enough people providing goods and services) you'll just have inflation. But ya, if all the money is concentrated and billionaires are indulging in most of the production while the elderly starve, most of us are still screwed.
They don’t have to. If say robotaxis become widespread, you’ve freed up some portion of the labor market to do something else. They don’t have to automate all jobs, just some.
The evidence has shown that this thinking is flawed - disruption of jobs in an industry causes a slow, wrenching, scarring adjustment process that increases the load on welfare programs and makes quality of life broadly worse: https://www.npr.org/2025/02/11/g-s1-47352/why-economists-got...
It won't. The economic gains of automation will continue to be captured by the capital-owning class. It's simply too valuable to just give over to the masses.
I have a popup saying "terraforming complete" after 10 sols, but I want to keep playing and I cannot dismiss that popup.
The game is definitely fun but there's some papercuts that make it tough: no dismantle I can find, placement is difficult to understand.
Some feedback:
Colonists are really tough to talk to - you have to be in just the right spot.
There doesn't seem to be a downside to spamming buildings if you can afford it. There needs to be some ongoing cost to everything you place OR a downside.
Music shouldn't change in menus, or at least shouldn't restart constantly. That gets a bit annoying.
what is insane is that everyone just accepts it, knows that this happens, and dont go lynch the ones in charge immediately.
There was a time when the guy making the cannon had to sit on top of it for the first shot. Perhaps this kind of policy could be adapted to other situations aswell.
Take the job to guard epstein? take the consequences when things go wrong.
Protect criminals? take the very real consequences if found out
> what is insane is that everyone just accepts it, knows that this happens, and dont go lynch the ones in charge immediately.
For a while, my pet conspiracy theory was that this was Epstein's real cause of death: a lynching by a prison guard made to look like suicide.
I never took it too seriously, because no actual evidence; now I'm more inclined to think it was a coconspirator hoping it would mean no more evidence getting out.
Epstein being murdered is the one conspiracy that I personally still think may be possible/probable.
All it takes is a single actor paying off some guards to ‘fall asleep’, a camera to be disabled, and a 15 minute window of opportunity. It’s much more probable than something like the US Government planning 9/11 and somehow keeping thousands of co-conspirators silent.
I don’t really spend a whole lot of time thinking about it since as you said, we’ll never know for sure. It just seems at least probable if he actually did have kompromat on powerful people.
This insanity was going to break at some point. Now hopefully these trillions of dollars of losses might finally allow the price of old DDR4 memory I've been trying to acquire to finally recover.
What's reasonable is: "Set reserved fields to 0 when writing and ignore them when reading." (I heard that was the original example). Or "Ignore unknown JSON keys" as a modern equivalent.
What's harmful is: Accept an ill defined superset of the valid syntax and interpret it in undocumented ways.
Good modern protocols will explicitly define extension points, so 'ingoring unknown JSON keys' is in-spec rather than assumed that an implementer will do.
Funny I never read the original example. And in my book, it is harmful, and even worse in JSON, since it's the best way to have a typo somewhere go unnoticed for a long time.
The original example is very common in ISAs at least. Both ARMv8 and RISC-V (likely others too but I don't have as much experience with them) have the idea of requiring software to treat reserved bits as if they were zero for both reading and writing. ARMv8 calls this RES0 and an hardware implementation is constrained to either being write ignore for the field (eg read is hardwired to zero) or returning the last successful write.
This is useful as it allows the ISA to remain compatible with code which is unaware of future extensions which define new functionality for these bits so long as the zero value means "keep the old behavior". For example, a system register may have an EnableNewFeature bit, and older software will end up just writing zero to that field (which preserves the old functionality). This avoids needing to define a new system register for every new feature.
I disagree. I find accepting extra random bytes in places to be just as harmful. I prefer APIs that push back and tell me what I did wrong when I mess up.
Very much so. A better law would be conservative in both sending and accepting, as it turns out that if you are liberal in what you accept, senders will choose to disobey Postel's law and be liberal in what they send, too.
It's an oscillation. It goes in cycles. Things formalize upward until you've reinvented XML, SOAP and WSDLs; then a new younger generation comes in and says "all that stuff is boring and tedious, here's this generation's version of duck typing", followed by another ten years of tacking strong types onto that.
MCP seems to be a new round of the cycle beginning again.
The modern view seems to be you should just immediately abort if the spec isn't being complied with since it's possibly someone trying to exploit the system with malformed data.
"Warnings" are like the most difficult thing to 'send' though. If an app or service doesn't outright fail, warnings can be ignored. Even if not ignored... how do you properly inform? A compiler can spit out warnings to your terminal, sure. Test-runners can log warnings. An RPC service? There's no standard I'm aware of. And DNS! Probably even worse. "Yeah, your RRs are out of order but I sorted them for you." where would you put that?
That sounds awful and will send administrators on a wild goose chase throughout their stack to find the issue without many clues except this thing is failing at seemingly random times. (I myself would suspect something related to network connectivity, maybe requests are timing out? This idea would lead me in the completely wrong direction.)
It also does not give any way to actually see a warning message, where would we even put it? I know for a fact that if my glibc DNS resolver started spitting out errors into /var/log/god_knows_what I would take days to find it, at best the resolver could return some kind of errno with perror giving us a message like "The DNS response has not been correctly formatted", and then hope that the message is caught and forwarded through whatever is wrapping the C library, hopefully into our stderr. And there's so many ways even that could fail.
So we arrive at the logical conclusion: You send errors in morse code, encoded as seconds/minutes of failures/successes. Any reasonable person would be able to recognize morse when seeing the patterns on a observability graph.
Start with milliseconds, move on to seconds and so on as the unwanted behavior continues.
The Python 3 community was famously divided on that matter, wrt Python 3. Now that it is over, most people on the "accept liberally" side of the fence have jumped sides.
Warnings only work if the person receiving them is either capable of and motivated to do something about it, or capable of motivating the person/people capable of doing something about it.
A weak warning that's just an entry in a scrolling console means nothing to end users and can be ignored by devs. A strong warning that comes out as a modal dialog can still be ignored by devs and then just annoys users. See the early era of Windows UAC for possibly the most widespread example of a strong warning added after the fact.
Is it just my connection or is the huggingface downloader completely broken? It was saturating my internet connection without making any progress whatsoever.
Ideas are cheap for a very narrow vision of "ideas". Sure, you can build your recipe site, TODO list or whatever it is cheaply and quickly without a single thought, but LLMs are still just assembling lots of open-source libraries _mostly_ written by humans into giant piles of spaghetti.
There's a hilarious thread on Twitter where someone "built a browser" using an LLM feedback loop and it just pasted together a bunch of Servo components, some random other libraries and tens of thousands of spaghetti glue to make something that can render a webpage in a few seconds to a minute.
This will eventually get better once they learn how to _actually_ think and reason like us - and I don't believe by any means that they do - but I still think that's a few years out. We're still at what is clearly a strongly-directed random search stage.
The industry is going through a mass psychosis event right now thinking that things are ready for AI loops to just write everything, when the only real way for them to accomplish anything is by just burning tokens over and over until they finally stumble across something that works.
I'm not arguing that it won't ever happen. I think the true endgame of this work is that we'll have personal agents that just do stuff for us, and the vast majority of the value of the entire software industry will collapse as we all return to writing code as a fun little hobby, like those folks who spend hours making bespoke furniture. I, for one, look forward to this.
The "built a browser" example you gave reminded me how I've "built a browser" as a kid in the 90s using Visual Basic (or something similar) - I've simply dragged the browser view widget, added an input and some buttons that called functions from the widget and there you go, another browser ready :-)
I agree with your vision of endgame. We wouldn't even need a screen, we will communicate verbally or with signs with our agents with some device that will have a long battery life and will always be on.
I just hope that we retain some version of autonomy and privacy because no one wants the tech giants listening in every single word you utter because your agent heard it. No-one wants it but some, not many, care.
reply