They are losing billions… of investor money.

This may include people investing in index funds, now that Musk’s Space/AI company is publicly listed. Maybe a piece of people’s pension fund as well, if NVIDIA’s wish comes true. https://fortune.com/2026/08/13/nvidia-wants-your-pension-fund-in-the-ai-trade/

The layman with money in index or pension fund probably don’t intend to invest in AI, but here we are.

Do users actually want such AI summaries? Is there any good polling on this?

I mostly read about people being annoyed by companies pushing hard for AI, and trying to get rid of those unrequested summaries.

It looks like Apple need to go back to the drawing board for their passkey implementation.

We’re talking about different kind of proofs.

Proving a program is correct requires a formal specification and a formal verification with mathematics and/or formal methods. ie proving the behavior and result perfectly match specification for all possible inputs.

A test only proves that a program 1) returns the expected output for a specific input, or limited set of inputs, and 2) appears to behave correctly, ie there may be undefined behaviour but they don’t cause an immediate crash.

Actually proving that C code is correct is not easy.

Having a human developer manually write code that is less harmful/wrong, and doesn’t require proof, is probably easier.

Is the money printing machine broken?

deleted by creator

“If you need extra hire, a friend is looking for a job, I could get you in touch”

Interesting. Hopefully this provide resources to worthwhile research projects, not generative AI (research) projects.

Given the homepage emphasis on (generative) AI, it’s not very encouraging. But hopefully I’m wrong.

I’m all for GPUs and memory being available to research that benefit public good, within limit. And less of it being available to LLMs.

AI companies are swallowing a large part of memory and some chips production, meaning less availability and higher prices for everyone. This is part of the resources misallocation. https://www.cnbc.com/2026/01/10/micron-ai-memory-shortage-hbm-nvidia-samsung.html

Fair point, GPUs are often used too, and have other uses for HPC workloads.

There is still a major misallocations of resources for AI. This infrastructure is badly needed by big tech for their AI growth plans. No one else need this much.

There’s no good reasons to build at that scale and so fast, for any reason.

There’s a need to lower overall energy and resources usage, and improve efficiency. Building many large datacenters for LLMs go in the wrong direction.

Mostly out of the loop, I use this fork as well. Apps distributed on the F-Droid repo are OSS, built from source, and screened for malware.

If the fork is no longer maintained I expect it to be removed from the repo, that should be announced on the blog with the regular app news.

LLMs require specialized processors, ie TPUs and ASICs. Using GPUs or CPUs would be even less efficients. AI datacenters layout and cooling are specifically designed to accomodate those specialized processors.

My understanding is that repurposing such datacenter for other kind of computing would be expensive. Doing this shortly after building them would mean loosing a signifiant portion of the initial investment. ie would require replacing processors, cooming, and redisigning the overall layout to optimize for another type of processing.

This would not conflict with linux kernel policy, nor with other upstream use of AI. The article makes it clear:

Importantly, the ban would not apply to upstream projects that use AI, software related to artificial intelligence, or patches and security fixes from upstream sources. In other words, Debian could still package third-party software developed with AI assistance, but Debian contributors would be prohibited from using such tools for direct project work

Gönner said investing in new technologies, such as artificial intelligence, was vital.

Huge amount of money and resources is already (mis)allocated to LLM-style AI. With very dubious results on productivity, jobs, and clearly bad results for the environment.

It’s surprising to see people wanting to pour even more money into this pit.

It might be possible to fool it.

More important, it’s normalizing use of facial recognition in everyday situations. This is a very invasive tech and prime for abuse by increasingly totalitarian governments.

Airbus is migrating its most critical applications for sensitive workloads from AWS to …

Airbus is competing with Boeing. Why would they even expose their “sensitive workloads” to USA’s federal & local governments and agencies?

heightened concern about the US Cloud Act, which allows the American government to request data held in overseas datacenters owned by US businesses

The Cloud Act was passed in 2018. And Snowden revealed various spying programs in 2013, including PRISM where NSA and partners spied on comms at various tech companies. The USA would probably see Boeing’s success as a strategic interest, so it’s reasonable to think they rely on the country’s vast spying powers to help Boeing.

So… what took them so long? Was someone blindfolded for the last 13 years, or naive enough to believe AWS was safe for sensitive european data?

The skepticism toward acupuncture is that not only the location where the needle is inserted doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter if inserting needle at all, ie it’s no better than sham acupuncture. This looks like the placebo effect.

A 2009 study found it’s no better than poking patients gently with toothpicks. But still still conclude acupuncture is (more) effective. That’s misleading. https://www.respectfulinsolence.com/2009/05/13/another-acupuncture-study-misinterpreted/

Would be curious to read if there was a review that does a deep dive in to see what today’s best evidence show, given randomization and blinded controls.

I looked at the first couple links you pointed me to. This is hardly cherry picking.

The author themselves write their review include low quality study, acknowledging it weakens the conclusions. It’s the author’s assessment, not mine.

Should I ignore the 2 first links, and look a another, specific one?

I looked at the first couple links given the time I have.

These article conclude there seems to be an effect while stressing the conclusions are based on low quality studies.

From Paulo Alexandre Pereira et al 2026:

acupuncture is a safe and effective alternative to medication, despite the low to moderate methodological quality of the included studies

From Chuwen Feng et al 2025:

methodological weaknesses are worth mentioning, such as diversity between studies and the inclusion of lower-quality clinical trials. Future research should consider the importance of conducting large-scale, multicenter randomized controlled trials with standardized methodology to confirm these findings

The science based medecine article I linked earlier references (reviews of) good quality trials & with strict controls, such as E. Ernst et al 2011:

numerous systematic reviews have generated little truly convincing evidence that acupuncture is effective in reducing pain. Serious adverse effects continue to be reported

There are good reasons to remain skeptical, given reseach that include low quality trials see some effect, while others don’t.