Likewise, I was left feeling like this is just more fodder for the circus. Tesla's stock is attention-driven more than anything at this point. By that measure, this car makes sense. By any other, it's more grift and gimmick.

We dreamt it in the context of solved social problems. At least I did. And those people are enabling man slaughter for profit.

There is also that point and a an even so slight correction that it’s a hovering car at best.

> Maybe this time is different

It is in the sense that you performed tasks for people, and knew which tasks needed to be performed. The advent of agentic programs now means those same tasks can be deduced by the agent and also performed by it. There's a very thin moat between you and that, now.

some people, most people i'd say, don't really enjoy working with computers. if you ask anyone on the street they know chatgpt of course but ask them what an agent is and they will have no idea.

That's okay, though. Agents are an abstraction no one will really need to understand. They will still benefit from it when they press a button to 'do the thing' which previously required a human.

Yes, I just think there is a huge mental barrier that will gradually have to disappear through slow diffusion of information. People think it's too complicated, it must be hard to use since it's a complex technology etc. etc. So even when we reach the stage that it would be easy to use, many will just not even try or know about it.

I mean I would think that, but I've literally tried to train product owners on contracts I am on to use AI and not pay me anymore and they still get overwhelmed by the idea of a terminal and ask me to do it. So I really don't know.

GUIs exist for AI and will exist even more widely soon. If even that is too overwhelming, there will be AI avatars (controllable video generation and speech synthesis) that just talk to you and you can talk to them. If even looking at a screen is too overwhelming, there will be robots.

But I think the key is none of this, but the responsibility. That's what they want to offload on you. They don't want to worry, they want it off their own shoulders, they want someone else to take care of it. AI cannot take on legal and social responsibility, since it doesn't have the same kind of social reputation at stake in a community or in a professional network or in law.

Rather than attempt to be random, knowing that I'm not, I wanted to see how well it can predict Math.random:

    setInterval(() => {
      const num = Math.round(Math.random() * 10);
      const ball = document.querySelector(`.typed-pad .ball-${num}`);
      if (ball) {
        ball.click();
      }
    }, 1000);

This isn't very interesting, but it scratched an itch I had to see what would happen.

    The house's record

    The house called 18 of your 190 scored numbers: 9%.

    Blind guessing would average about 21.1 of them (11%).

    Only 1 of the 206 people in a psychology study was more random than you. The house found you extremely hard to read.

I really want to know who was more random than a RNG

Getting 0% isn't the goal though. You want to sit right at 11.11%, the blind guessing rate. If the prediction algo always predicts you wrong, it actually always "predicts" a number you won't guess. That too is a feat, reducing the pool of numbers you're going to choose from, therefore making you more predictable.

I was. But if you're more random then you're probably not random. I was actively aiming to exploit the game - try to figure out which pattern detector it's keyed on based on its guesses, and then swap to a different pattern. Ended up getting 6% over a decent sample. You could probably get zero with a bit of luck!

The problem I had was somehow the double-pick algo randomly clicking on at seemingly illogical times. I'm guessing that maybe it's something like if you're not hitting any pattern matcher then the next guess uses a random pattern guesser, because it nailed me multiple times with the doubles even after not having one in 10-20 numbers prior. Though maybe that is itself a pattern that it checks for? It wasn't mentioned in the docs.

It might not be that someone is more random than an RNG, but that the distribution of numbers in your 190 vs. theirs appears more "random". It's a limited sample size.

If yours happened to contain consecutive digits or common ones (ending in zero, significant numbers like 911 or 42 or 69), that would imply less randomness even if it's actually the result of "real" RNG.

It looks like it's a fair implementation of guessing. Giving it digits of pi gives a very high (low) score - most times. To get a lower score I think you would have to be adversarial and/or get a lucky run. Based on the house doing better/worse on some runs I guess it not deterministic.

Seems I'm perfectly random.

  The house called 8 of your 76 scored numbers: 11%.

  Blind guessing would average about 8.4 of them (11%).

  Only 4 of the 206 people in a psychology study were more random than you. The house found you extremely hard to read.

They were probably also a RNG… one of them has to win, just on chance.

It got 8% of mine.

i actually was, it said no one was more random than me! guess i just got lucky.

tldr; "im just like totally so random xD"

be honest, you held up spork, didn't you?

I ran into similar problems. My analytics became so useless that I threw them out.

Most of the world disagrees and eats/enjoys tons of beans.

Related, the healthiest sources of protein are very affordable and typically come with a ton of fibre. You can have both very easily

Lots of people = almost all people in the USA, according to research I’ve seen. I’m not sure of exact numbers, but I recall it being somewhere close to 95% of people being deficient to some degree, with the majority of that group being quite deficient.

There are massive efforts to sell more dairy/beef in general. The governments in the USA and other countries subsidize it at massive scales. Other proteins are just fine, but there’s no pea protein lobby. Well, certainly not at the same scale.

The economics for cheaper proteins are actually incredible, too. The incentives simply don’t exist in the right places to facilitate the right legislation and public awareness, though. Many of us grew up with “Got Milk?” and “Beef is What’s for Dinner”, not “Got Lentils?”. It really made a difference.

I'm so bummed about this. Deno is by far my favourite JS runtime. I could sense this coming for a while now, but I was hopeful and just waiting to see what happened. Here we are. I'm glad I don't need to get off the runtime immediately. Sad we won't see any innovation like we did in the last 8 years or so.

I hope workerd at least adopts Deno's security mechanisms so it functions as a better sandbox.

One of my favourite projects of 2026 was a configurable LLM harness built around using deno as the runtime. The idea is that the configuration builds a state machine-driven program which is bundled into a binary that can only provide access to the I/O your code explicitly needs. I used it primarily to build interactive programs for colleagues which allow some LLM magic to occur without needing to worry about what they would do with Claude Desktop handling the same data or accessing the same machines and so on. It also allowed for testing local LLMs in deterministic patterns. How do they reason about what to do next when they can evaluate the possible states they can enter, based on the current context? It was really fun. Now I don't really know how I'd rebuild it, knowing I wouldn't use Deno. Maybe that's worth learning anyway.

For what it's worth, workerd has some pretty aggressive sandboxing too. I'm a bit biased but ask your favorite LLM about it.

If you're familiar with aquatic biology and chemistry, the levels of ammonia and nitrogen required to cause harm to fish like this is staggering. These animals have evolved (in many cases, not all) to tolerate some pretty gross conditions. Killing fish this acutely takes incredibly poor conditions. Especially carp.