No, it was literally government policy. The free market didn't give us the McGovern committee or the following half-century of subsidies, regulations, and guidelines to promote low-fat diets.
Markets don't exist in a vacuum. In this case, it was substantially shaped by state-driven incentives. If nothing had changed, we wouldn't be having this conversation. It's a historical fact that something did change: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obesity_in_the_United_States#/....
What changed 50 years ago is the US government decided saturated fats were bad and complex carbohydrates were good, and began setting policy to rebuild the food supply and culture around that worldview. We're now living in the result of that population-wide experiment.
No worries, thanks for sharing that post anyway! Another post of yours[1] turned out to be a useful resource for me not too long ago, and the artwork is pretty entertaining.
I wasn't implying that the two should be hybridized. I think both are great options to have in our toolkit. For example, in Cyph I chose ML-DSA for end user signing keys + certificates and SLH-DSA for code signing.
I agree. If we're going the rally the industry to do the work, it should be the whole work in one shot. Any given project/infrastructure that implements both encryption and signing should adopt ML-DSA/SLH-DSA at the same time as ML-KEM, or at least in immediate succession.
My concern is that PQC is having a bit of a Y2K moment, and undercapitalizing on that sense of urgency may risk letting PQ signatures drag on for ages like IPv6. "We need $X engineering budget for PQC" is easy to understand, but "we need $X for PQ encryption now and $Y for PQ signing at some undefined future time" is murkier and may require getting into the weeds on cryptographic concepts and speculative CRQC timelines with non-expert stakeholders.
To be fair, those aren't contradictory positions. I'd rather meth not exist, but given that it does exist, I'd prefer to let that revenue go to Big Pharma than North American ISIS.
(That's before even touching the can of worms of allowing the government to criminalize personal health choices, which feels like a glaring loophole in the Constitution to me.)
It sounds interesting from a hardware perspective, but yeah, IMO no one other than Apple has the luxury of shipping a PC with second-class Linux support anymore. If the Linux experience is anything less than perfect, it's DOA.
Also, USB-A in 2026? Really? That was already an automatic disqualifier for me at the start of the decade.
Agreed. These accounts of people having genuine emotional responses to LLM chats, even going as far as to spend tokens berating them, are very curious. I would be surprised to learn that SOTA models respond optimally to anything other than dispassionate problem-solving, or that scolding per se serves any productive purpose.
Of course we all swear at our computers every now and then, but for me it's always been in good fun. It's just a sarcastic joke that adds some levity and self-amusement to an otherwise arduous debugging process, not generally actual insinuation of malfunction (or malice) on the part of the hardware/OS/toolchain. I'd assumed that "half the job is cursing at the machine until it obeys you" was a big in-joke amongst the profession, but the LLM era seems to be exposing a divide in how tongue-in-cheek that statement really is.
Sounds about right. I think the response is a bit of an overreaction at this point, but an understandable and easily preventable one. It would have saved a lot of grief to have been more transparent and set clearer expectations: rather than yolo the experimental code into main, put it in a "v2" branch, publish an expected release timeline with 2.0.0 projected for ~Q4 2026 - Q1 2027, and announce a transition of 1.x to maintenance mode with only security fixes. The technical execution and release planning may or may not be excellent, but the political execution so far feels like an unforced error.
I like both approaches. The fact that both exist is a clear win for the rest of us as consumers.
Tesla's approach seems like a bet that A) AI will reach human-level driving intelligence before lidar becomes cost-efficient, in which case their current sensors will be sufficient to achieve at least human-level performance; and B) ~human-level performance will be sufficient to achieve large-scale consumer and regulatory acceptance. Waymo seems to be taking the other side of that bet.
If Tesla is right, their solution should scale faster, and they can worry about adding superhuman sensory capabilities later. If Waymo is right, all the Cybercabs that Tesla is pumping out right now are destined for the scrapyard, or at best will spin their wheels in beta testing for years while Waymo speeds ahead.
Tesla is putting its money on the bull case for self-driving as a whole. If Tesla wins that bet, it means we all get access to a useful version of the tech years earlier. If Waymo wins, that's great too, but it means that for better or worse lidar will be a bottleneck to scaling the tech.
The whole thing is basically a rehash of Intel vs TSMC on EUV in the 2010s.
Personally, I'm not entirely opposed to UBI, but what I'd rather see is a system of guaranteed jobs and educational/training stipends (with part-time and/or remote options). The reason for that is primarily fault tolerance: in the event that a major disaster renders our AI/computational infrastructure inoperable (or adversarial), it's imperative that humanity itself act as a redundant store of all the information necessary to preserve or reboot civilization.
That being said, I do think UBI (with some guardrails) is still preferable to making everyone consume services provided exclusively by government monopolies. Not because anything provided by the government in particular is going to be magically low-quality, but because any monopoly is inherently insulated from long-term systemic incentives to compete on price and quality.
A true UBI might be hard to fund today, but it's not inherently hard to fund in principle.
Mathematically speaking, any UBI amount (or other expansionary monetary policy) could be offset by an equal and opposite increase in aggregate supply, resulting in more money with net zero inflation. If we had 100x higher annual growth in supply of housing/food/energy/transportation/healthcare/electronics/etc., creating 100x more annual growth in money supply would counter the positive supply shock to keep the purchasing power of a dollar stable; the fact that more dollars would exist would simply reflect the reality of having more stuff to go around.
Whether and how it may be possible to achieve such supply growth, however, is another matter entirely. While I'm personally optimistic about the technological trajectories of AI, solar/fusion, and humanoid robotics, optimizing/liberalizing Western economies and adjusting to a post-labor-scarcity world will both be at best politically turbulent.
The incentive for the wealthy to go along with such policies is that it would be a practical necessity in order to continue selling their stuff. If 90% of the population lacked a survivable income, that wouldn't be a functioning economy, it would be a precursor to civil war. Even so, private corporations won't want to voluntarily employ people they don't need, because that's just a textbook prisoner's dilemma. On the other hand, publicly funding such capital distribution puts the corporations on a level playing field relative to one another while enabling business to continue as usual.
I'd feel safer with streets populated by fleets of mature autonomous vehicles than the current status quo, even (or especially) when traveling by foot and train (which I do often). Public transit is great, but cars also exist for good reasons.
Ah, yeah, that's a good point. I can imagine some potential creative workarounds (e.g. having certain rides or types of rides involve transferring between two vehicles, possibly with multiple parties per vehicle like Uber Pool), but whether they'd actually be willing to support that is another matter entirely.
lol, I mean I wouldn't be surprised, but I don't think I was describing anything fundamentally different in principle from what Uber/Lyft/taxis already do. Like when you walk out of an airport or a super busy bar/club and there's already a line of cabs waiting for anyone who needs one to get in.
Just to clarify, I'm not suggesting that the apps will or should ever go away, but rather that with sufficient volume both ways could become plausible options. If an available Waymo happens to be sitting there waiting for a passenger, I don't see why it shouldn't let me just tap my credit card on the handle or something and tell it where to drop me off. Of course, summoning one or tapping my phone would ideally work too.
I'd be more inclined to believe that an abundance of robotaxis will use predictive algorithms to preemptively show up wherever they're likely to be needed, allowing a UX where users can hail them like traditional taxis without an app. Maybe not in four years, but maybe in a decade or two.
That feels both more credible and more desirable than the magic panopticon predicted in the quote, and doesn't really depend on any major technological leaps beyond continued maturation and scaling of Waymo/alternatives.
Assuming that's the primary value prop, they should go all the way and distribute it as a single cross-OS/arch fat binary. It looks like this may be a way to actually accomplish that: https://github.com/jart/cosmopolitan.
https://supremecommander.ai