Looks to be mostly unrealized losses from crypto holdings

I could be convinced to support public cameras if access to the footage was tightly controlled and only used for solving serious crimes, but government officials and flock themselves have repeatedly shown that they can’t be trusted to use them in a responsible manner. It’s too powerful of a tool to put in the hands of untrustworthy individuals

Why only serious crimes?

If someone breaks into my car and a Flock camera sees it, is their right to privacy in a public space more important than my right to not have my property get stolen?

Yes.

I don’t understand the controversy here. I know Tesla is prone to false advertising, but having a human take over in an emergency situation seems like a good safety measure. There have been documented instances of autonomous vehicles blocking traffic during emergencies. Having a human operator step in in those situations seems like a good idea.

The controversy is the continued lack of transparency from Tesla about their activities on the planet's roadways.

The US and Iran are both taking their lumps in this conflict, but Russia is clearly reaping the benefits.

I would guess that they are getting many less Shahed drones from Iran though.

It is interesting how so much of the speculation in those days was about how x86 was a dead end because it couldn’t scale up, but the real issue ended up being that it didn’t scale down.

Well, it turns out that it could scale up, it just needed more power than other architectures. As long as it was only servers and desktop PCs, you only noticed it in more elaborate cooling and maybe on your power bill, and even with laptops, x86 compatibility was more important than the higher power usage for a long time. It's just when high-performance CPUs started to be put in devices with really limited power budgets that x86 started looking really bad...

My guess is that “War in Iran” can be seen as a neutral name. It is literally where the war is taking place. Whereas “War on Iran” assumes the perspective of one of the sides even if it may be a more accurate description. Sort of like how people in Vietnam don’t call it the “Vietnam war” because that would not make sense from their perspective but it does make sense from a neutral perspective.

From what I’ve seen, AI tools don’t do well with large codebases with lots of technical debt and complex interdependencies. If you see some project that requires tons of manual testing to keep running and only a few crusty veterans know how to make changes without causing more problems, this is the kind of project that could be fairly immune from AI takeover. Bonus points if there are poor or limited unit tests. Projects like these exist in the bowels of many large companies chugging along helping keep the business running. They may not be sexy, but if you really want to avoid AI tools, it could be an option

No the assumption behind the statement and many others on this topic is not AI is more productive than Human + AI, it’s that 9 (or 8 or 6) humans + AI is more productive than 10 humans. No one is suggesting getting rid of all workers, but many are saying they can get rid of a significant percentage of them. It remains to be seen if that ends up being true but it is fundamentally different from what you are describing

The ones that still assume big brother will be spying on and killing the people they hate. Trump openly campaigned on getting revenge on his enemies. I can only assume his supporters want this. The danger of course is if/when the leopards eat their faces