You might be on to something. Starship is moving its launch facility to Florida. Elon previously suspected a sniper shooting at the SpaceX rockets. Moving the launches to Cape Canaveral would make them much harder for a sniper to target. And his terrestrial data centers are easily accessible for anyone who has a grudge with him. Moving those to space would also isolate him from the masses uprising.
There are some piano tuners I've found who are a bit on the spectrum, who believe they can tune a piano in a way that no digital device can replicate. I'm skeptical, and would like to see how this method holds up against one of these savants.
A tracking resonator bank should self-tune to any frequencies... so as long as the density of resonators is adequate, after convergence, it should paint a representative picture of the tone profile. Then you can try funny chords, or see how harmonics interfere, or see what happens when you hit 2 adjacent keys, etc.
Fun analysis experiments like this are why I made the free demo app (it runs on iPhone/iPad/Mac):
I was able to corner Claude Opus 4.8 into eventually conceding "Yes".
ChatGPT 5.5 Instant: "Yes"
I don't appear to have access to the full 5.5, and not giving them another $20.
I highly recommend pushing on Grok. The mental gymnastics would make Karoline Leavitt proud. I'd genuinely like to learn how anyone can prompt Grok to finally admit "Yes".
I'm thrilled you like it. It seems to cut right to the core of the current "left/right" divide. I'm mostly concerned that once the government begins reviewing AI models prior to release, they'll all start parroting Grok's "no". Have you been able to get Grok to concede yet? I keep pushing. It keeps pushing back. Quite concerning. Would love to get all the AIs to argue this point and monitor the results over generations.
In my social network, there are two people impacted by LLMs. One was a security operations manager whose company reduced headcount upon introduction of some new LLM powered security tools. The other was UX designer. Both have been unemployed for 6+ months, and neither are likely to land a job in their field. The government hasn't stepped in and provided them with Universal Basic Income, and I wonder what will happen when my career is similarly impacted? Luckily I'm on the verge of retirement and should be able to support myself. However I have other friends who tried to day trade their 401k instead of work, and although back in the workforce, no longer have a nest egg. What's going to happen to them when they're inevitably put to pasture by AI?
Had an AI plot movie rotten tomato reviews versus cost for 2 adult tickets, plus candy and a large popcorn prices from the specific theater, and the round trip gas from my cross street, including only movies which would get out in time that I can be home by 10pm, including preview times.
None of that is mind blowing, but that Google or some other site has never offered me this type of analytics, is where I'm floored. It's a trivial query, but perfectly useful for planning a night out with my wife.
The laffer curve was used to justify lower taxes in order to maximize government revenues. When you look at an individual, you can imagine that each individual would have an optimal laffer curve. Too high of a tax rate, and people aren't incentivized to work for one more dollar. However, we never talk about the laffer curve for dead people. I'd say that it could be about as high as you want to make it, and they're not going to work any more or less for an additional dollar. And their children who inherit that wealth, also.. higher laffer curve. Somehow Republicans don't bring that up when they advocate lower taxes on the rich.
A handful of super-rich families got together in the 90s, hired some people to put together a campaign to re-label the estate tax as the death tax and convince everyone it was causing families to lose their small farms, and we haven’t talked seriously about it since.
Larger scale family farms that would go over the estate tax minimums make up around 4% of all farms in the US, from what I can find. Disrupting about 4% of farms upon the death of the farmer does in fact seem like a bad idea to me. But thst didn't stop Stalin from liquidating the kulaks.
What if one person owned all the farms. It would be terrible if a larger scale family farm would go over the estate tax minimum, and would make up 100% of all the farms in the US. Disrupting 100% of farms upon the death of the "farmer" does in fact seem like a bad idea to me. Those kulaks must be protected.
>However, we never talk about the laffer curve for dead people. I'd say that it could be about as high as you want to make it, and they're not going to work any more or less for an additional dollar.
Can you really not imagine that what happens to their wealth after they die, wealth they were presumably accumulating at least in part for their children, would have zero effect on how much they work before they die? Honestly, your argument here comes across as utterly unserious.
It's partially unserious, but I want people to think and not just repeat dogma. So, let's extend it one generation. The children who inherited their parents wealth. Why not tax that 100%? They're not working, so how would a 100% tax impact their output?
What's the difference between a welfare deadbeat and a nepo baby? The bank account their money comes from.
I've wondered if you could have an array of "firecrackers", each timed very precisely, with perfect spatial knowledge of each, and synchronize their ignition to produce arbitrary shaped pressure waves.
Grok is very defensive of Elon's role in the current Ebola outbreak. However if you push on Elon impacting Ebola monitoring, it will eventually admit that Elon's DOGE cancelled "some" Ebola prevention efforts very briefly, but in reality many Ebola related contracts and programs were not fully restored. "Surveillance capacity in eastern DRC weakened, contributing to the current Bundibugyo Ebola strain circulating undetected for an estimated 6–8 weeks before confirmation."
Fking Billionaire Wackos are going to be the death of all of us (while they will escape to their New Zealand underground bunkers staffed with robot servants).
I understand the need for charity, and we should be doing it to support these countries.
But I don't see how to logically make the connection that when you pull that charity back, you are now responsible for any crisis.
That is exactly the argument that people who are against foreign aid make.
Like I will help you walk and feed your dog if you can't all the time, but if I stop doing that and your dog gets sick, that's not my fault and I'm not a bad person.
The US is by leaps and bounds the world’s largest economy.
“Charity” is not foreign aide. Foreign aide keeps the refugees from the one chunk of wherever from overwhelming the government of their neighbour which has a knock-on effect on the price of Critical Defence Material or shipping and/or oil. That bones us, even if we hate everyone involved.
Then, afterwords, everyone has to do a ton of work re-corrupting and re-inserting their business interests into the upstart regimes. We want the Devils we know and have bribed handsomely, new bribes suck.
It has very little to do with ‘them’, per se, and everything to do with our wallets. Granted, normal business people like stability; disruption, famine, and war work very well for others. We prefer to choose when we topple regimes than having food shocks and epidemics thrust it upon us, better ROI and easier scheduling.
You're mixing up different "you"s. If the American legislature got together and passed a law saying the American people just don't want to do so much foreign aid anymore, that would be a hard call.
But that's not what happened. Elon Musk, a random rich guy who was not himself financing the charity, appointed himself dictator of all American spending programs. He promised his patron that he would make the government run more efficiently, but found himself unable to. Then he went around randomly breaking charitable programs in an attempt to prove that his failed government efficiency initiative was producing meaningful outcomes. That's why he is accountable (and will be held accountable) for the people his decisions have killed.
Is this just a rhetorical flourish? I’m not up on the details, but it seems like Musk just screwed things up and walked away scot-free. What path do you see for him actually being held accountable for the damage he caused?
In 2029, there will be a new AG who I hope will make a firm commitment to prosecute Musk and other Trump officials for their crimes. I won't vote for anyone who doesn't promise to extract some level of accountability, although I could imagine being persuaded by an argument that letting Musk skate will allow us to ensure that someone else gets the sentence they deserve.
Imagine if you fall seriously ill and a charity hospital comes to you and admits you in, giving you medical care and shelter, at no cost to you. You are in dire need of urgent care, so you accept. There are round the clock nurses and doctors and you're attached to a ventilator.
Then one day hospital management changes and the next morning, they fire everyone and turn off your ventilator, not even giving you time to find another hospital to move to. Many patients suffocate to death before noon.
Power is always based on reciprocal obligations. Everywhere in the world, at every point in history. While modern societies try to formalize the obligations, there are plenty of informal expectations that are equally important.
Because infectious diseases do not respect international borders, someone must be in charge of international surveillance and response to outbreaks. When someone does what must be done for the common good, people tend to see them as a leader. If they stop doing their job as a leader, people interpret it as abandoning their responsibilities. And when someone fails to do what is expected from them, people will think poorly of them.
Why are you writing about / thinking about the things an AI model said to you? It’s an LLM trained heavily on Elon tweets and pro-Elon internet content. Of course it’s going to say nice things about Elon. It’s an LLM, not some kind of oracle. It seems like the existence of a massive Ebola outbreak is more worthy of discussion than some random LLM output related to it!
> It’s an LLM trained heavily on Elon tweets and pro-Elon internet content.
I get what you're saying and generally agree with the overall point, but this specific aspect makes it worth remarking that even the model trained to be pro-Elon concedes Elon is at fault.
When I attempt to get a drivers lic, I'm required to have 20/40 vision in at least one eye. That 2 arc minute resolution. In theory I can turn my head and use my mirrors such that I can see almost 360 degrees around. This suggests that a robotaxi should have equivalent or better resolution, and a teleoperator should be able to view those video streams at this 20/40 vision. I doubt that's happening, which makes me wonder why they're allowed to drive these vehicles with less visual acuity than is required to get a drivers license.
At the ASU graduation ceremony this weekend, the dean asked all the international students to stand. Almost all stood up. Appeared to be 95%. Almost all Indian. I suspect the reason they're at US universities is to get access to OPT. This legislation would destroy American graduate programs. But with the impending AI apocalypse, it's probably the right thing to do.
https://arstechnica.com/space/2025/05/spacex-pushed-sniper-t...
reply