Rhaedas

My wife moved from WordPerfect (pre-Corel) years ago to Word strictly because all her clients were using Word and she got tired of converting things to work on their machine, especially when printing it out. Not because it was a better choice. This is Microsoft's only power, dominating the market. Brilliant business strategy, I'll give them that. Why they don't use it to be better at the same time baffles me.

I'm sure somewhere in time a cat has been partially responsible for deleting a database. It's just another thing to knock over.

Took me decades to break out of the "on the bus but can't get to the front to get off at my stop". Now I'll probably have a relapse thanks to this reminder. But the late/missed class, those dreams suck.

"Once again, weird."

I think she's doing it to have a reason to go to confession.

Wait, is this a repost, or is Netanyahu up to it again somewhere else?

Wasn't that supposed to be that exact call back?

Next level, make the center one USB-C.

An LLM used for language purposes is the best application. It's using that hammer to drive a nail. When they deviate from that role to other things, that's when the effectiveness drops. When Co-pilot was pushed into our enterprise system incorporated into Outlook we played around with seeing what it could do with summarizing emails we would routinely send and get. It made them pretty, I give it that. But it didn't handle the information well and was very inaccurate at time when it was missing data. The whole hallucination thing. So just verify what it produces for you before you hit send.

"We're out of paperclips again. Co-pilot, please order more paperclips and make sure we don't run out of them again."

Co-pilot goes brrrrr...

Just kidding. Co-pilot is terrible.

It was about estimating the effect of continued world population growth on the world's carrying capacity. It's true that it did not have a lot of other variables at play, one important one being climate change. So if anything it was a best case of just a few known parameters, and not all the ones we've affected, many that wouldn't even be known then. The model's projections hold up well enough to have been a wake up call to do something drastically different. And we didn't.

The fact that we now recognize a date each year where Earth has reached its carrying capacity and that date steadily gets earlier should suggest they were right too. Along with plenty of recent studies that say the absolute maximum is probably around 11 billion (so maybe you are a bit correct in saying our tech has given us a bit more room), but the optimum population from these studies is around 2.5 billion.

It does depend on both the minimum standard of living being used as well as how well resources are distributed. If we set almost everyone to the lowest levels now existing, perhaps we could get a few billion more. If it doesn't spike the death rates and reduce birth rates.

Actually scientists in the 1970s were saying we need to do what we can to stabilize AT the 4 billion we were at then. See Limits to Growth and related studies. Cutting back now would help, but far more damage has been caused thanks to everything we've done including but not limited to population pressures than if we had heeded the warnings then and changed our direction. Some feedbacks are probably unstoppable now, no matter what we cut back.

That sounds a lot like typical Windows features over the years. Using WIndows at work today I unpinned Co-pilot and that stupid new Notes app from my taskbar three times. They kept coming back, not right away, but ninja like.