> Napkin math somewhere around 6B people (~75% of the population) have barely come in contact with LLMs at all.
I wonder how accurate this metric is. People may be coming into more contact with LLM generated content, although they may not be aware of it. Content on social media is becoming "AI enriched" already, or outright entirely created by AI for the purposes of triggering engagement and views. It starts with posters using AI to improve their writing, editing a photo, elaborating on an experience. It ends with bot accounts astroturfing certain communities to sell an experience or a product to a group of people.
In this case, people are not directly working with AI, but they are indeed influenced by it.
What's tricky about reporting this in metrics though is that half of the American population is literally too unintelligent to realize this - they believe Reddit comments are still written by real people, not companies advertising products, that "friends of friends" on Instagram are also real people with no incentives posting about their lives.
If there is anything at all that I have seen out of this AI work it is how easy it is to manipulate a massive amount of people.
> I would like the price of my home to rise, because it increases my wealth, but I would also like the prices of all other homes to fall, so that I could sell my house and buy an even nicer house.
There’s a way to do this. Buy in a VHCOL area like San Francisco, wait for 3-10 years, then move to Texas, Florida, South Carolina, etc. Real estate is highly localized so you do not need to stay in the same area all the time.
The homelab guy at CloudFlare did this because the prices of real estate in Austin are actually falling.
I mean yes it’s a bet, but real estate in SF has historically done very well. The progressives/NIMBYs have a strong presence to thwart new housing so that existing properties increase in value.
I wouldn’t count somewhere I don’t want to live being cheaper as the prices of all other homes falling… ;) Nor as lack of need to stay either - if real estate prices were the only thing keeping people around, cities might not exist.
So is wrong to use captive.apple.com for tests as well? It's nice to know your network can reach the internet and these pages are generally fairly reliable.
A HTTP request for http://www.msftncsi.com/ncsi.txt returning 200 OK and the text Microsoft NCSI. This is the url windows has been using for decades to determine if the device is online. It is highly reliable.
These pages are unfortunately getting special treatment from quite a few networks these days, among other things to avoid iOS users getting stuck in a loop of trying to connect, and getting disconnected by the OS due to a "non-working connection" for local-only networks like in-flight entertainment systems.
It's a shame that we don't have any standards for the concerns of canonically testing Internet reachability and for authoritatively redirecting network users to a captive payment portal (without having to resort to ugly hacks that often break with TLS).
If they say that it's not intended as a reliable service for testing purposes it can't be that reliable, and they might take it down or change the structure arbitrarily at any time, etc.
So yeah I would pick something simpler for a network access test probably?
If I were to operate a 'service' not intended as a reliable service for testing purposes... I would make sure that it's not reliable - and very unreliable - from the start. So, delayed responses, no responses, garbled responses, duplicate responses, varied responses, ...
The only risk is that Apple hasn't announced it as being reliable or promised to keep it up or the format the same in any way. They could 100% pull it out from under everyone, with modifications in their OSes prepared for the change
I really wish the Ashai Linux team pivoted and spent more time making quality emulators for past platforms. The current crop of emulators are much better than they were 10 years ago, but the Ashai team has a real knack for reverse engineering and figuring out all the bugs. I think having a really well polished set of emulators would be really cool from a game preservation standpoint.
You jest but I know someone made a copy of all “The Hobbit” films spliced together, but removed all the made up portions. And removed all the Legolas bits, since he wasn’t even in the book. I think the total run time was something like 4 hours 15 minutes.
The icing on the cake was how popular this edition was.
That does sound like an improvement over the actual Hobbit movies. I'm not even joking about Oppenheimer, would do it if I were really bored. Might be a great movie if it were simply in order.
I highly suspect someone has already made a fan edit of Oppenheimer like you've described. I searched for a few moments and found 3 already and one already describes re-cutting it in chronological order, among many other changes. Always surprises me how much effort and passion people put into fan edits. It's a facinating scene in itself with how many edits exist out there.
When it was first announced that Peter Jackson's film of The Hobbit was going to be split into two parts, I thought "Yeah, that makes sense. There's a LOT of material in that short book, because of how sparse Tolkien was being with description. Makes sense that Jackson would have trouble fitting it into a single 2.5-hour movie."
When I heard, later, that the film was going to be a three parter instead, I thought "Uh oh. There's plenty of material for two films, but three? Filler City, here we come."
My wife and I saw the movies in the cinema, and while we enjoyed them overall, I found that I was right about the filler. I was particularly annoyed by the barrels-down-the-river scene, where the film turned what should have been a moment of quiet drama into a sort of rails shooter on the screen. That scene threw me out of my immersion; the whole time, I was thinking "The only reason for this scene to exist is to be made into a video-game level." As a video game level, it would kind of work: you're in the barrels floating downstream, and you have to shoot enough orcs with the bow you somehow have (or flatten them with your barrel that has been inexplicably launched out of the water) to stop them from killing your friends. (Or perhaps the video game level would make more sense if you play as the elf on the shore, killing the orc archers before they can shoot the fish^H^H^H^H dwarves in a barrel).
Regardless of how that scene would work as a video game, the problem with it is that while watching it, I was laughing at how ridiculous it was, instead of on the edge of my seat with excitement. That is NOT what the audience should be experiencing, and it means that someone — director, producer, screenwriter, editor, who knows — made some very poor choices in putting that scene on-screen.
So yes, I'm not at all surprised that a fan edit of The Hobbit which removed all the filler would be wildly popular. In my case, I would rather buy a 4.5 hour version of the film than the officially-released version. If only that version was for sale legally.
P.S. Not all the filler material in the Hobbit film trilogy was bad. Some of the scenes that weren't technically in the original book, such as Gandalf and Galadriel discussing the threat of The Necromancer, were a positive addition and helped link the Hobbit film to the Lord of the Rings trilogy. If Jackson had stopped there it would have been fine. I have never watched the fan-made "Tolkien Edit" recut version of the Hobbit film(s) so I don't know if that scene was included or not — but in my opinion, that one would fit into a "Tolkien Edit" even if it wasn't technically part of the original book.
Having played the video game, yeah that's how the level went, and it kinda sucked.[1] It's a looping circular river (physics be damned), and I recall having to do many loops before I got 100%, since moving targets are hard to hit with a gamepad.
Wait until you see how often Tolkien edited The Lord of the Rings. Most of it was name and print corrections, but still. You would think you’d fix it all after one or two reprints.
I think Apple is really sleeping on making this run a Linux server. These things are very capable and draw very little wattage when idle. It would make an excellent homelab device, but MacOS currently holds it back in this regard.
I'll probably manage with Mac OS well enough, but my linux distro comes out of the box with all the latest OSS tooling I'm familiar with, plus a package manager, and it has linux cgroups and namespaces that power the container technologies we all know and love.
If I switch to Mac OS, I have to sort out a package manager and install all the stuff that's missing, and when it comes to containers... they're just linux VMs. I'd happily cut out the weird proprietary middleman if I could.
Linux for argument’s sake, may have a few things that are better than Mac OS but Apple being the last vertical computer company from the 1980s, I don’t think they have any interest in using Linux, not after Next, Motorola, IBM, Intel and Nvidia in the past. They don’t need to they appear to navigate thru tech very well in comparison to Microsoft or Intel, for example.
https://dontpastetheai.com/
https://gruhn.me/blog/2026-08-03/
https://www.rickmanelius.com/p/aidr-ai-didnt-read
reply