There is a scene in "Thick of It" where ministers, in a cash-strapped government, are brainstorming laws and policies that cost nothing in terms of budget.

The latest Tory proposals sound just like that. Banning floating bus stops, crackdown on "rainbow" lanyards, dangerous cycling. Perhaps in the future people will only be able to have yellow flowers in their gardens or bake bread on odd numbered days.

In a time where big infrastucture investment is needed they are like the middle management that changes the Jira workflow every 3 months just to appear to be doing something.

I'm honestly amazed that people seriously compare an 8bit machine with no network to a smartphone with Internet and social media.

The Internet, amazing as it is, it's also the home to the worst possible content imaginable and believe it, kids always find a way to neutralize parental controls and the like.

Also, I don't understand this notion that "tech" (in the most vague definition possible) actually brings any future advantage.

It's like teaching kids Excel or Python and hope they will win a Fields medal. If parents teach them critical thinking, reading books and love math and logic, they'll pick up any problem, language or "tech" easily when they're older and run circles around other kids that "know programming".

I have to use both Jira and Workday.

Unpopular opinion, perhaps: I find them ugly and slow, but not soul-crushing.

Granted, I only use WD to book PTO. If my whole work was around it, I would probably hate it too. My work _is_ around Jira, but my opinion is just a strong "meh". Companies should definitely find better alternatives, but the hyperbole is a meme at this point, e.g. "I'd rather be unemployed than use Jira"

Imagine an Adobe version of this. 64Gb at least.

So many great movies mentioned here, I won't repeat them.

I'll just add Hitchcock's The Birds.

I saw it as a kid and it made an impression on me on several levels. For instance, a scary movie doesn't have to be about monsters. And made me realise that other living beings aren't in this planet just to be either food or pets, they're our neighbours.

I've heard somewhere online (can't find the source) something along the lines:

> I wish AI would do my laundry and dishes so I could do my art and writing.

> Instead, AI is doing my art and writing so I can do my laundry and dishes

Computers are good at things we find hard. And are bad at things we find easy.

We can't multiply a million numbers together in a second which is hard for us. But doing the tasks for laundry is easy for us but hard for computers.

Which makes sense if you think about evolutionary pressures of what we are optimized to do well.

Setting aside the gravity of the situation, I'm 100% gripped by the "mystery novel" side of this. Seeing the internet piecing together the Who? the How? an the Why? is fascinating.

I don't have time to properly go through the entire list, of course, but the first paper that I've opened seemed to use ChatGPT to format a table of values, presumably not in tabular format originally. It didn't _seem_ like any of the ideas or conclusions were GPT-created.

I'm perfectly fine with this usage, although it is very sloppy if the authors and reviewers didn't pick the "certainly" in the final text.

I'd be very wary of the LLM hallucinating a few number changes here and there, similar to what copies used to have a habit of doing: https://www.dkriesel.com/en/blog/2013/0802_xerox-workcentres...

Absolutely, the time saved formatting a table + time triple checking it might be the same as doing manually in the first place.

But I was talking about the intended usage, it doesn't sit as fraudulent to me in the scientific sense.

You can ask it for code that will convert your input into tabulated output. Easier to check the logic of the code than all of the values in the table, then just plug your data into it.

But it shows a lack of care in the preparation of the paper

_Many_ moons ago, before I had a job, I remember that Hackintosh seemed like the only way I could enjoy a Mac OS.

These days I have literally piles of old Macs that I have fun trying different Linux distros on.

I lived in one the buidings mentioned in this article.

Pros: It was the most spacious flat I've lived on. I'm not talking about area, but the layout itself, it was amazingly well architected. Massive windows too, great lighting (but see cons).

Cons: Single glaze windows (and a protected facade) meant eye-watering energy bills. Poor quality subfloor (with carpet) meant 24/7 creaking when walking over it.

I live in a similarly protected flat in Scotland and in the last decade there has been quite some development with double glazing for historic buildings. Quite a bit more expensive than normal double glazing though but at least you can get quite decent windows for historic buildings.

Also secondary glazing is a thing and is not awful, even if not as good as "proper" double glazing.

Lots of heat is lost through solid walls though (and ceilings and floors) it is not just windows.

energy efficiency > historical preservation

Historical homes are energy efficient. They don’t require any new resources to build, and will typically last much longer if they were built with old growth lumber.

Retro fitting is the way. Don’t tear them down for some new crap.

That's not what I meant, sorry... Not being able to install proper double- or triple-glazed windows because of historical preservation is really backwards.

Good places to live > a little cost in retrofitting

An interest free loans from the Scottish government to buy them (repayable over 12 years)