Uniting to fight gasfields might be just the common enemy that Iran and Israel need to finally mend this relationship.

If you had a secret agenda to reduce the world's carbon production, this is one way to go about it.

If you break the rig on a mature oil deposit, there is a chance you will make the remaining petroleum/gas unreachable for the foreseeable future (at least at an acceptable price point). So you reduce the total oil quantity humanity will be able to extract.

I just walked into a room and everywhere I look, everything I see is made up of the same basic building blocks.

The only thing left to figure out is how did these legos learn to assemble themselves.

Alternate title: "Local man not a snitch"

Ehhh no they wouldn't.

On what charges?

Most devices don't even require manually setting the clock anymore. What exactly is so difficult about the time changing by an hour?

Most devices do still in fact require setting the clock. In my home right now, I have a computer, a phone, my microwave, my stove, and my car which all have clocks. Only the first two of those have the ability to sync time from an external source.

I’m curious about your school or job/work schedules. Or how consequential it is, when personal scheduling isn’t kept.

If a personal or family routine is not robust enough to handle an hour of variation I wouldn't expect the dst changeovers to register in the top 25 most disruptive yearly events.

Your understanding is backwards.

We see increased deaths with the time changes. Car accidents. Heart attacks. There is a real cost.

LLMs have not radically transformed the world yet because the number of people capable of solving problems by typing into a blinking cursor on a blank screen is actually quite small. Take that subset of the population and reduce it to those that can effectively write communicative prose, and its even smaller still.

It's just an interface problem. The VT100 didn't change the world overnight either.

Hiring seems to be way down in my world as a result of LLM. It isn't so much people staring blankly that I worry about, but companies thinking hey maybe we can get away with not replacing headcount for a while longer, or maybe this tool will help bootstrap the offshore team to be at parity with the expensive onshore team.

There's another point, too. Detractors say LLMs will never advance to whatever threshold they consider meaningful. Fine. We're working on other paradigms, too, though. Just because a lot of o people are productizing LLMs doesn't mean the state of the art isn't advancing in parallel and AGI isn't in the cards.

Agree, LLMs are just another tool. Treating them as chatbots is a very basic way of using them. The future is intelligent engineers embedding them in traditional systems and having them perform specific roles.

React server components are dope. Server actions are dangerous but powerful. No one has a more mature implementation of either of these than Next.

It is hilarious to me that the industry has reinvented serving HTML to clients, but with many intermediate steps, and this is heralded as groundbreaking.

You'd almost wonder if there wouldn't be more to it.

I still just prefer having a more clear separation of concerns with API routes instead of using server components. I want my frameworks to be way less fancy than what Next is pushing out these days. I get the feeling we're dealing with the consequences of Vercel employees needing to justify their promotions.

Of course no one has a more mature implementation of it than Next. The Next.js team designed it themselves!

React and RSC are not dope they are a kludge and the only reason you’re blind to that fact is because you’re React brained and have no experience with modern alternatives that are actually good like SvelteKit or SolidStart.

Who cares about what free users want?

Why wouldn't I assume they're just going to screw over their paid customers too? Now ask me why I would never pay for YouTube Premium. And there's your answer. You're actively discouraging people from giving you their money which was the entire purpose of having a business to begin with.

Google is an advertising company. Its goal is to create growth and maximize profits. How do you get more money if the free users leave? Raise the subscription prices.

If in the current arrangement the free users represent a majority of the costs, hassle and noise and a shrinking or stagnant share of revenue, then you get more money by turning the screws and seeing how many convert.

I honestly don't know if this is sarcasm or not, but I would think, just based on the fact that 96% of users are free users, they shouldn't try too hard to piss them off.

Free users generate negative revenue, so even if a million of free users leave and a thousand convert to paid users, it's still a net win for Youtube.

Why is that?