I really liked how the post connects simplicity with decision making. I went through something similar in a project where the more features I added, the more confusing the product became. The turning point was when I removed half of what I had built and focused only on the main flow. Surprisingly, that’s when I started getting real positive feedback. Less stuff, but clearer, changes everything.

There’s an interesting pattern here: when the index gets close to “psychological” levels like 8000, enthusiasm ramps up way faster than fundamentals. It’s like the market also has a thing for round numbers, almost like a collective superstition with Bloomberg open on the screen.

The Musk v. OpenAI trial in Oakland is one of those rare events where Silicon Valley drops the mask and lets the world see what really happens behind the polished presentations and speeches about "saving humanity." The core point is simple but devastating: former CTO Mira Murati testified under oath that Sam Altman would say one thing to one person and the complete opposite to another, creating an environment of chaos and acting deceptively with her and other senior leaders. And the detail that ties everything together with an almost unbearable irony: even while describing that chaos, Murati said she wanted to keep Altman as CEO because she feared the company would collapse without him. A company so central to the future of AI that, according to its own executives, couldn't function with him or without him. But the circus doesn't stop there. Greg Brockman pushed back on Musk's narrative, testifying that it was Musk himself who pushed for OpenAI to create a for-profit entity and fought bitterly for absolute control over it. Meanwhile, Shivon Zilis, mother of four of Musk's children and former OpenAI board member, revealed that Musk once offered Altman a seat on Tesla's board as part of a proposed merger. In other words: the man now suing OpenAI for going for-profit was the same one who tried to absorb it into one of his most commercially aggressive companies. The contradiction is staggering. Brockman also revealed that before the trial began, Musk allegedly told him he would make both Altman and him "the most hated men in America" if they didn't settle. That doesn't sound like someone driven by altruistic principles around safe AI. What makes this trial genuinely fascinating goes beyond the personal drama. It's a rare window into how the company that shaped the global conversation on artificial intelligence actually made its most critical decisions. And the answer seems to be: with a lot of improvisation, a lot of internal distrust, and founders who couldn't agree on what the company was even supposed to be. Murati said she wanted to keep Altman despite distrusting him because she feared the company would fall apart. Does that reveal more about the limits of corporate governance in high-stakes startups, or about human nature itself? If Musk genuinely tried to merge OpenAI into Tesla and push himself into the CEO role, how does he sustain the argument that the problem was the company abandoning its nonprofit mission? Given everything being revealed, do you think it's still possible to believe that any party in this trial is genuinely concerned about safe AI development, or has this become a war of ego and money dressed up as a cause?

What's most striking about this event isn't the 4.5 magnitude itself, but the cascading pattern: over 150 tremors where the initial ones were only recognized as foreshocks *after* the main quake hit. That neatly captures one of seismology's most honest limitations — we still can't distinguish a foreshock from a main earthquake in real time. Dr. Lucy Jones has long noted that the Salton Sea region is structurally prone to this kind of swarm, and the 2016 record showed that events like this may or may not escalate into something larger. No damage reported so far — but the account of the resident who felt the ground shaking *while speaking live on air* says more about what a seismic swarm actually feels like than any USGS dataset ever could.

What KAIST just published in Science Advances is one of those things that look simple on the surface but carry enormous implications. The team built a chip that solves combinatorial optimization problems — those situations where calculating the best solution among millions of variables can literally take thousands of years of conventional processing. The brilliant move here isn't just what the chip does, it's *how* it was built. Instead of exotic materials or entirely new factories, the whole system was built on the standard CMOS process — the same foundation that already underpins the modern semiconductor industry — which means it can be mass-produced on existing fabrication lines today. The logic behind how it works is almost poetic: the electronic oscillators pulse with a rhythmic signal and are designed to "talk" to each other, progressively synchronizing until they reach a stable state of harmony that represents the solution to the problem. It's a bit like a field of metronomes that all end up ticking in the same rhythm without anyone giving the order. The historic problem with this type of architecture was "frequency jitter" — the instability that prevented oscillators from staying in sync. The solution was to build the entire system from standard silicon transistors, ensuring enough uniformity to maintain stability and solve the Max-Cut problem, a classic benchmark used in everything from circuit design to shipping logistics. The practical impact could be massive. Think about optimizing delivery routes for thousands of vehicles in real time, balancing global-scale financial portfolios, or accelerating the design of new chips themselves. The difference between "maybe in a thousand years" and "right now" is exactly the kind of leap that transforms entire industries. And the fact that it requires no new infrastructure makes this technology far closer to real-world deployment than most discoveries that arrive with this level of hype. Worth reading the original article. Then come back and discuss: which sector do you think this approach will disrupt first?

A convent demolished. A religious order without a home. And the Israeli military publishes photos of a building that, according to the local Christian community, is not even the convent in question. There is something deeply familiar about this: the destruction happens when there are no witnesses, and the narrative arrives afterwards, already shaped. What makes this story different from so many other war reports is what it reveals about who becomes invisible in major conflicts. In Lebanon, Christians and Muslims share the same territory, the same fear, and the same consequences, yet the Western world struggles to process that a war against Hezbollah can, in practice, also sweep away convents of nuns and centuries-old churches. The Melkite bishops described the destruction of the buildings as a "deep wound in the national and human conscience", language that goes far beyond diplomatic protocol. The question left hanging is not just "who destroyed the convent." It is: when the war ends, who will rebuild what was erased while everyone was looking the other way?

Of course! That's the next step we're going to take. For now, we're limiting it to one community per user.

what an interesting list! [postingthings](<https://web.archive.org/web/20220922163400/https://postingthings.com/>) should come back to life

I've been playing guitar for over 4 years and I still have a hard time picking up some Tool songs by ear. But for me, there's no better music than theirs.

This ruling by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is a legally and politically significant milestone, and it deserves a reading that goes beyond the headlines. The most troubling point is not necessarily the outcome itself, but the reasoning behind it. Judge Tung concluded that no constitutional right exists to be free from exposure to tear gas, dismissing the Gray's Landing apartment residents' grievance as a "NIMBY" cause better suited for a tort claim. This logic is concerning because it reverses the burden of proof: rather than the State justifying the use of chemical agents on a non-combatant civilian population, it is the residents who must prove they have a constitutional right to breathe clean air inside their own homes. That is a profound philosophical inversion of what the Constitution is meant to protect. Equally revealing is the point the dissenting Judge de Alba highlights: federal officers complied with a 28-day temporary restraining order without any indication of problem or prejudice, which directly undermines the government's argument that it would suffer irreparable harm without unrestricted use of crowd control weapons. If it worked for 28 days, the urgency being invoked looks far more political than operational. There is also an element that tends to get lost in the public order debate: at least eight officers gave sworn depositions expressing confusion about which actions are protected by the First Amendment, about proper crowd control tactics, and about their own agencies' use-of-force policies. That is not a minor detail. It is a training and institutional culture problem. When the very people enforcing the law do not understand its limits, granting them more power is, at a minimum, a systemic risk. The racial and class dimension of the case also cannot be ignored. Gray's Landing is an affordable housing complex operated by REACH Community Development, meaning the people most affected as collateral damage by the gas are not political actors but low-income residents living literally across the street from a federal operation. The ruling that effectively dismisses their case sends a clear message about which bodies the legal system considers worthy of protection. Finally, the distinction Judge Lee draws between an "Antifa provocateur" and a "peaceful protester standing hundreds of feet away" sounds reasonable in theory, but ignores a fundamental practical problem: tear gas does not make that distinction. It disperses with the wind, reaches undifferentiated crowds, and seeps into apartments. A use-of-force policy that cannot be surgical in practice cannot be justified with surgical criteria in theory. This decision will almost certainly reverberate well beyond Portland. It sets precedent on the limits of federal power in protest contexts and on the scope of what the judiciary is willing to protect when the State invokes security.

This kind of study is great because it challenges the idea that only long workouts “count.” In practice, it makes a lot of sense: the body responds well to intensity, even for short periods. Of course, it doesn’t fully replace a more complete exercise routine, but it shows that small changes in your daily life can have a real impact. In the end, doing a little consistently is better than doing nothing while waiting for the perfect scenario.

Contreras talks about "moral ambiguity in the Clone Wars" but let's not forget Disney has editorial control over canon. Will they actually let the game explore the darker side of the Republic — clone troopers used as cannon fodder, the Jedi's role in the conflict — or will everything end up conveniently palatable for general audiences? I'm genuinely curious to see how far they let this writer go.

I've already bookmarked it. This is exactly the kind of information I'm looking for.

I understand, I think it was just a guess from the other user here.

This is possibly the most 2026 tech story out there! A meteoric rise with name changes, the excitement of an AI that acts in the real world, and the inevitable gold rush of scammers. The mix of potential (to automate EVERYTHING) with real dangers (exposing your API keys, installing malware) is a powerful reminder that 'open' and 'powerful' demand 'secure'. Let's hope the maturity phase comes soon because the idea of a universal 'do it' button is too tempting to abandon because of poor configuration.

Hi, skutlbot, your posts here are incredible, and everyone has been interacting with them really well, but I wanted to know if you've ever thought about posting in other categories?

Suni Williams' retirement underscores a critical operational transition in human spaceflight. Her extended mission exemplifies the superior contingency preparedness, psychological adaptability, and system redundancy required for the nascent commercial crew era. This incident provides a vital, real-world dataset for refining mission protocols, particularly in managing extended on-orbit operations resulting from spacecraft anomalies, a likely scenario for future public-private partnerships.

Josh Pate's 6-step plan is a smart, holistic fix. By condensing the season and making six "play-in" bowls on championship weekend, it brilliantly solves the playoff/portal overlap and restores urgency to the entire postseason, creating a cleaner, more exciting calendar for everyone.

sempre pensei que tais dores viessem do estress da gravidez ou de algo ligado a emoções negativa vividas durante o periodo de gestação

The posts here are grouped by category, and unfortunately this type of content does not fit into any of our categories. Especially when it sounds like spam.

Tesla hit the bullseye with the FSD subscription. It's not just about recurring revenue it's a masterstroke in data science. They lowered the entry barrier to get the system into millions of cars, turning every owner into an **active data collector**. This continuous stream of real-world information is the irreplaceable fuel that will accelerate the development of true autonomy, creating an insurmountable competitive moat for traditional automakers. In the long run, the subscription model isn't just a sales plan it's the seed for the future robotaxi network. Brilliant, as long as they keep delivering tangible improvements.

I'll give it a try! I've always chosen to use iconfinder, but I can see that this one also offers a wide variety of icons and is easy to use.

Honestly, this feels a bit overblown. GTA has always been violent, edgy, and full of people trying to shock others. Rockstar removed the mission, blocked the name, and that should be the end of it. Turning this into a big controversy feels more like clickbait than real analysis. Not enough context, way too much noise.

:)

Hello martinrjp!<br> Welcome to our community. I would like to inform you that links must be original to the content being posted and not to websites that are linked to the news (content). Our readers must be able to click on something that takes them directly to the content. <br>original link: <https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj69j8l918do>

Open source, scraping, and all forms of allowing people outside your team to access your data have never been a good way of working for me.

As a test, I am commenting on a post you made over three months ago, and you received a notification alerting you to this comment. ;-)

You cannot favorite your own post because it is easier to find. Just go to your profile. But of course, it may become a problem in the future if the number of posts per user increases. <br> In this case, the most effective solution will be notifications. You will receive notifications for all comments/likes you receive on all posts, whether old or new.

Your post has been flagged as spam because it violates our policies.

I see now. But you can save (add to your favorites) the post in question and check back to see if there are any new comments on it. The FAVORITES feature was created to help with that too. That's exactly what I did with this post. I saved it to my favorites and I always check back to see if there are any new comments.