In my experience in white-collar and tech jobs since 2019, nobody I've ever worked with has been expected to be reachable after hours. Same goes for my wife, all tech jobs as well. If someone messages me and I'm online, I'll answer, and it's about 50/50 that they say "Oh you didn't need to respond this late, just work on this tomorrow!"
Unlike all the replies to you, this is why I'm very optimistic about the future of hobby blogs. I do a lot of ChatGPT-ing for several different hobbies, and I've found a lot of really interesting personal blogs from that. Way more than I was reading in the pre-AI era.
I'm very much not seeing the problems other people are assuming, like tons of LLM spam on Reddit being treated as fact by ChatGPT. Instead it really does seem, the more I use these tools, the better they are at surfacing real experiences written about by real people.
I'm right there with you for a lot of stuff. I ask a question and can be very confident that ChatGPT is citing sources, then sometimes I go read the sources. The more critical the information I'm looking for is, the more careful I am about this.
The other day though I was seeing how well it could pull details of its own conversations with me. It often does this pretty well for broad strokes of things - it remembers, largely, what cameras I have and use when I ask photography questions. It's never made things up here, but it does forget details, such as whether I've bought something or am just considering it. However, when I asked it for a specific interaction I thought I remembered, it gladly went along with my false memory and provided an affirmative answer. It was the first time I'd been caught in a serious hallucination with a frontier model (Sol High on the web chat interface) in a long time.
The article seems to be saying that lack of equity is worse than lack of innovation. Obviously we can strive for having both equity and innovation, but it really seems like the points made in the article are arguing that, for example, if there exists a discrepancy in what speeds are available to different people, this is worse than only the lowest speed being available to everyone.
The linked article from 1973 is very strange to read in 2026 and honestly it's hard to take seriously. It seems to actually argue that China and India should stop developing because development encourages dependence on energy. It says that machines are slaves that modern people are required to master?
The speed equity discussed in the linked paper has actually increased significantly as well. More people have cars, and more people can afford plane trips, and bicycle infrastructure is better all over the nation (the world, probably) compared to 1973. I agree with the general principle that cities should encourage diverse development so more people can choose not to use cars if they want, or if they don't have access to a car. In the paper, this would be achieved by somehow state limiting the amount of energy people would be able to consume per capita. I'm glad that world didn't come to pass.
Basically it sounds like the point of view of the article is that at some point the state should tell people they're not allowed to try to make a certain process more efficient in terms of time or resources, because that might drive demand for better productivity, which would be bad because it drives us further from nature and community. Some of the points intersect with beliefs I hold, but I strongly oppose this way of going about it.
The author is a socialist, quoting a socialist from 1973 whose ideas if implemented would've made everyone's lives worse. The idea that a lack of equity is worse than a lack of innovation is a core principle of socialism and it's the core reason why socialism is bad.
There's a great deal of demand for compute. Data centers are a very efficient way of providing that compute in a single place with limited resources. If computers were restricted to being slower and less efficient than they are now, people would build even more, and larger, data centers.
> Chang established the basis of this research in a previous publication with an intentionally simplified model that ignored such complexities as geography and migration
This seems like a very impactful simplification. Especially given the relative limited mobility of peoples up until very recently.
It (Sol, on high) does seem actually really quite competent at this work though (GPU programming). Much more so than the attempts I made with 5.5 earlier today.
15 years or so ago when I was more into guns I spent a _lot_ of time on historical firearm sites looking for Martini-Henry rifles. There were still a trickle of them turning up straight from caches in Afghanistan (maybe other countries too). I never bought any because I was just a teenager, and now prices have more than doubled, of course.
That's a really interesting experience. Lots of people in language learning communities have this argument back and forth for years. Have you ever written a longer piece about your education, preparation for the exam, abilities of other test takers?
For reference I scored ~C1 in German years ago (testdaf 4/4/5/4) and at that level there's no question at all about the vast gulf between me and an educated native speaker.
I've not written up anything, no. I think I'd have a hard time doing so without just feeling like I'm bragging about myself, which I don't like.
There's still a definite gap between me and native speakers, that shows itself primarily in the effort required, but I'm definitely near native (pass as German in all social settings, although an hour long conversation will usually tease it out due to my unfamiliar first name or small-talk topics, rarely but occasionally due to mistakes).
I prepared by doing two practice exams and about 5 filmed and timed practice presentations, and that was over preparing for me. Experiences vary, and I do think I'm a bit towards the outlier side, but it's left me convinced that the whole "native speakers might not pass C2" thing is overblown.
reply