Well, these hacks targeted large influencer accounts. It could have more severe impact than 20k randomly selected accounts.

Large influencer accounts without two factor authentication...

The only useful reaction to this is to point and laugh.

Somehow this company still earns over a billion dollars a week in net profits, which I find puzzling.

Do you still perceive search and maps to be slow even when logged out?

I'm probably 50/50 with search in particular logged in vs. out and I do think I notice on both, but I'm not entirely sure. Just saying the search and maps algorithm is wading through so much of my history that it can't help but choke trying to deliver the "right" results?

No, but I was thinking it might be possible that your account is specifically afflicted by some storage problem. For example, it could be homed in the wrong part of the world, compared to where your browser is hitting frontend applications. Or a million other possibilities. When logged out those wouldn't be factors.

I thought it was notable that in Google's press release yesterday regarding their new facilities near Amarillo they seemed to go out of their way to point out that the applications are not AI, listing "Search, Gmail, Maps, Cloud, online banking, and 911 systems" instead. I wonder if they find it more convenient to rent an existing one rather than face public scrutiny for building another "AI data center".

I wonder if they are more than happy to let someone else take on the burden of the massive writedowns that are bound to hit in a couple of years.

Burden in terms of tax implications, or in terms of the investment possibly not being profitable?

Saying this about Rust and C++ is like saying the kitchen you just built is cleaner than the old kitchen you used for 50 years. Get back to me in another few years.

I agree for the comparison.

Now for Rust I don’t think it is going to change a lot. Because it is based on ML, it has the best foundations and all features are known. The question is more how much Haskell vs script/imperative do you want your language to be, and what’s the purpose of the language rather than we had the wrong paradigm and found a new better one. For Rust 99% of its features are known and most are already implemented.

Maybe things around the borrow checker, and await, but beyond that nothing as much as what C++ saw in its history. Even more when for instance you see the article from the guy doing Gleam where traits (impl) are not necessary, all you need is data and function to have the same functionality. Or how ML have been the main factor to most new languages or new features to existing languages.

The future is ML, with languages dedicated to specific use cases and niches. And also ML languages easily readable by AI.

Then I will feel the same about Rust! There's nothing wrong with wanting to throw out the janky accretion every 30 years for a redesign.

After 3-4 years, sure. But eventually enough has changed it's worth redoing.

Great question. It would also be fair to ask how this behaves with non-random inputs. The benchmarks in the repo only use random values.

This is false. Evaporative cooling systems consume significant amounts of water and do not reuse it. They can't anyway, recondensing the water would release all the heat they removed by evaporating it.

You don't have to evaporatively cool a data center. You can make a direct trade between energy efficiency and water consumption.

You don't HAVE to, but most of the big ones do.

You don’t have to but in hotter climates, especially those with higher energy costs (ca), it’s a lot cheaper to cool evaporatively.

Source on that water claim? Everything I've seen suggests the opposite.

Most people who believe that data centers use a lot of water aren't mislead about how much water data centers use, but they are unaware of how much water everything else uses. In the great scheme of things data centers simply do not evaporate that much water. They are too small and too few. As a comparative example, all the data centers in Arizona combined use less than 1/50th of the water evaporated by Arizona's own thermal power stations. Or, to choose another benchmark, the evapotranspiration of the rice crop in California is more than 250x the water used by data centers in California.

I think also to a degree, even if someone knows those other water use figures, it's easy to see an intrinsic value to the community from those sources. Many people do not see much value in pushing AI to such a degree where all this new compute is required, and others see a negative impact from this activity. It's much easier to argue against something you feel is wrong or bad than something that is arguably crucial for day-to-day life like electricity and staple crops.

Of course. The American consumer is the greatest hypocrite of all time. Their cars, fuel, airline travel, hamburgers, and paper goods are beyond reproach. Your matrix multiplication is an abomination.

You believe lies, 99% of data shows that data centers do not use appreciable amounts of water compared to almond farms, or gold courses, or bog standard lawns.

https://tech.yahoo.com/science/articles/data-centers-less-wa...

That source says data centers use a lot of water. Less than all almond farms combined, sure, but it doesn't support the parent argument. It's also 3 years out of date, and not relevant to protests against all the data centers that have not yet been completed.

Present your own data

You say that like environmentalists support those things. We don’t. We regularly criticize golf courses as a waste of water and land. We regularly call out the water waste and ecosystem impact of manicured, uniform lawns.

compared to almond farms? You phrase that as if almond farms use a reasonable amount of water.

Present your own data

Not OP, but here's a link from one of the previous times this was discussed.

https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2015/01/almonds-nuts...

Almond farming uses massive amounts of water, which has caused environmental impact concerns in the past.

Sorry but no, you don't get to lie just because your arguments don't resonate with the public. That makes you a bad person.

> Sorry but no, you don't get to lie just because your arguments don't resonate with the public. That makes you a bad person.

You misunderstand: data centers usually do use a lot of water, and I think the lie is "data centers use very little water." I believe it's possible for them to use little, but that's a choice that costs money. What I mean was instead of arguing the nuances of cooling or a particular project (which probably keeps all the details secret anyway), it makes sense to simplify and emphasize the water use angle.

The role of the tongue is heavily emphasized in modern brass pedagogy. Try Claude Gordon, Physical Approach to Elementary Brass Playing, 1977

Thanks, I will.

"The trombone is the only brass instrument in a classical orchestra" is a statement that requires further support.

It’s slightly confusingly phrased, but the full sentence is:

> The trombone is the only brass instrument in a classical orchestra […] where the main mode of pitch control is by moving the tuning slide.

Which is correct.

Their terminology is odd. The thing you move while playing is generally called the hand slide. There's nearly always a separate tuning slide located in the crook of the bell section.

(Some relatively rare instruments like the Shires Alto do "tuning in slide" with a mechanism for fine adjustment in the hand slide).

If you're also moving the tuning slide in the middle of a piece you're probably a bass trombonist doing the now-impossible glissando (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWJPeA_1g48) in the Bartok concerto for orchestra.

I was thinking the same thing. The tuning slide is not what you use while playing, it's the separate slide on the bell side of the trombone for fine adjustment to ensure you're in tune with the rest of the band.

I had the same confusion - I'd move the [...] to the following sentence.

The trumpet, french horn, tuba, and euphonium also rely on the tuning slide to control pitch, so that's not an accurate statement.

Do you mainly control pitch with the tuning slide or the valves on those instruments? I think you mainly control pitch with the valves and only supplement with a tuning slide for certain notes, depending on the instrument, and therefore the statement is accurate.

Mainly the valves. The tuning slides help with a number of things, including the fact that the harmonics (notes above the first ocatave) are not precisely in tune with the fundamentals. A trumpet typically has a trigger lever or a loop for your finger on one or two of the tuning slides.

You use it as needed. If you're playing a really fast passage, you'll likely skip it, but shorter notes are harder to place the precise pitch anyway.

If you really want to see tuning slides in action, find a video of a good tuba soloist.

The slides are needed, at least on the trumpet, because the tuning is perfect when using one valve but it's way off when you use two at once.

Indeed, a trumpet has one slide for tuning only and two more slides that are used while playing, so it's not even technically correct.

Your trumpet maybe, but my trumpet from 1957 only has tuning slides, which cannot be used while playing.

Interesting. A student horn I guess? I've never owned one that didn't have at least a third valve slide ring. I think they were widespread around the time that the trumpet really took over from the cornet, around 1900-1920. My pre-War Olds has moving slides.

I know a few cases where slides were added later. I don't know when they became common but impression is layer.

Yep. A basic trumpet has more slides than a basic trombone.

Oh, I read that as an independent statement, rather than one qualifying the first.

You read "where the main mode of pitch control is by moving the tuning slide" as an independent statement? What does that mean on its own?

The interrupting parenthetical was so disruptive to the sentence that I thought it said, essentially, "The trombone is the only brass instrument. Parenthetical. The trombone is played by moving the slide."

What's your hypothesis on why Texas has a much higher auto theft rate than Tennessee, given that they long had the policy you seem to believe is a remedy?

After adjusting for socioeconomic factors auto theft in the US is pretty much a straight gradient based on "how quickly can it be in mexico"

Arizona, New Mexico and Socal have pretty high auto theft rates as well.

This would be my answer, having grown up in Texas just hours from the border.

----

Now that I live 1,000+ miles-more, inland, I definitely keep more of these opinions to myself – but decades of Texceptionalism (indoctrination, the Tejas way) definitely affects one's opinion on proximity to Mexico.

So do Washington, DC and Colorado but those don't really seem to fit your theory.

Well, for one Texas has a port and a border with Mexico. Car theft is almost exclusively for export to other countries, particularly South America and Africa.

Eh, texas gets all that borderly goodness the liberal north dishes out so freely, but avoids for itself ?

I'm just wondering why this Wild West stuff seems to be neither effective, since Texas has auto theft rates well above national averages, nor necessary, considering that Florida lacks the statute and has auto theft rates well below national averages.

Florida is surrounded by ocean and you can’t drive stolen cars to Cuba.

Texas is bordered by Mexico and you can drive stolen cars to Mexico.

Also if we’re talking gundefend shouldn’t we be comparing carjacking stats?

It doesn't work but it does let people fantasize about being allowed to shoot someone to death legally.

I have actually killed, before. Given similar circumstances: would, again. I am a free man, walking among you; they let me carry a gun, still.

Self defense ought'a be allowable, and is a deterrent (even if only "statistically" ... which it is). Recent enhancing legal protections represent the shifting tides as our economy wavers into "survival" mode – ¿perhaps a Depression 3.0? – certainly it's bleak here in the workingclasshood.

Do you have any questions for your reality shaping, this morning?

I can't say someone gleeful and proud of having killed is exactly changing my mind.

Any parent would have been proud of what I've accomplished.

Do you actually have any questions, or just angry?

No, I don't have any questions, nor did I ever claim to. Fishing for questions was your idea.

I have a question for you: were somebody about to abduct your [hypothetical?] child/wife, would you consider use of lethal force to prevent such aforementioned tragedy (whether by yourself, or by a third-party [e.g: police])?

Well there are working alternatives to that:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_El_Salvador

Yes, I suppose we could in fact do corrupt bargains with criminal groups and then throw a bunch of people in jail without worrying too much about whether they're guilty or not. Bukele isn't the first person in the world to think of that. Mussolini had a similar approach.