Why? Like many people I don't do serious work on my laptop. It is used for Web browsing, email, and to SSH into other machines. A simple, affordable, but well built machine like the Neo would be ideal for this, on the condition that I can run Linux on it. I currently use an aging XPS in that capacity and the Neo would be quite compelling as a substitute.

Then how do you justify the title?

Thank you for destroying the Earth!

Thank God I'm a single human and don't have nearly that much influence over the Earth.

"No individual rain drop ever considers itself responsible for the flood."

I would totally do this without any shame if I had the need/desire. CO2 isn't going to be solved by well intentioned individuals making absolutely no impact. It will be a generic solution that solves it for everyone, or it won't be solved at all.

I'm also not going to take shorter showers when people are farming in a desert and shipping the crops to China.

You might think this makes me a terrible person. That's probably good. Because it will help people understand what we're up against and what needs to happen to actually solve the problem.

"Take less flights" isn't the solution.

Claude Code Max obviously doesn't cost 10x more than Kimi. The article even confirms that you can get $5k worth of computer for $200 with Claude Code Max.

So no, Claude would not be getting NEARLY as much usage as it's currently getting if it weren't for the $100/$200 monthly subscription. You're comparing Kimi to the price that most people aren't paying.

API pricing.

The existence of banks gives a huge financial incentive to rob them. That doesn't mean we should get rid of banks. It means we should create a huge disincentive to rob them (which we do). Same thing needs to happen to people using national intelligence secrets in prediction markets.

That requires active participation in regulation and enforcement.

If anything, this administration is moving the other direction when it comes to betting markets, crypto, investments, etc.

What you are saying is logical for how enforcement should happen, but it isn’t happening that way.

Banks are about saving money and reducing risk. Arguably when they got into high risk investments to make high reward is what contributed to the 2008 recession.

Not sure if banks are the best example of proving the country is not headed towards high risk gambling.

> We have to assume that he made the choice to be a martyr

I don't think we have to assume that. He could have thought the military build up was a bluff. He could have trusted in Iran's defenses to allow him time to find safety. He could have thought his assassination attempt on Trump would pan out. There are a million other could-have's that we could invent, and I don't think "him choosing to be a martyr" is any more (or less) valid than the rest of them.

>He could have thought the military build up was a bluff.

Everyone knew the US was attacking. Iran clearly knew as well.

>He could have trusted in Iran's defenses to allow him time to find safety

Everyone knows what Tomahawks are by now. Everyone knows that the first sign of an attack will be things blowing up around you. Further both Israel and the US have repeatedly performed airstrikes throughout Iran with impunity, including just a few months earlier with zero resistance. No, there is no rational situation where Iran thought their defenses would give cover for an old man in his own palace.

It's infinitely more valid of a supposition to assume he martyred himself.

Weird how this offends some people. It's especially hilarious when we have the classic "Mossad super-masterful strokes figured out that old man was...in his own home"

Like if the US, through masterful intelligence and a giant bunker buster, caught him in some underground complex, then sure. That isn't what happens.

Once the odds of a powerful strike get over 10 or 20 percent, staying in your house is choosing martyrdom over safety. I don't know what the actual best prediction would have been, but I don't think those million could-haves add up to a very big percentage that would overturn the above analysis.

No. Didn't cross my mind at all. Now that you point it out, I still don't care.

Or, now hear me out, we don't be racist. Have you considered that?

Comparing the touchbar to a touch screen is silly

I guess I'm just a luddite that spends my life on a CLI or text editor. Taking my hands away from my keyboard to leave finger prints on my screen just doesn't make sense to me.

I think people that do do tasks where a touch screen makes sense are probably just doing most of their work on an iphone or an ipad anyway.

Now gesture control on VR/AR setups? Sure, that feels like a new human/computer interaction system that makes sense. Jabbing at my laptop screen with one hand on my keyboard, not so much.

You are right the touch screen is even more stupid

It’s not. I had a thinkpad with a touchscreen and while I used the touchscreen seldomly, it was useful in some applications. Notably to easily develop touch based applications.

I have a M1 MacBook Pro with the touch bar since. It’s crap. I remember the keynote where they introduced it and a DJ mixed music using it. It was ridiculous that it got approved.

> Notably to easily develop touch based applications.

Ok, actually you're right, that's a use case where I'll agree it's probably useful. If you're writing iOS applications it might be nice to run it in Simulator and be able to do gestures without having to offload to your physical device for testing.

I do remember the cringy music demo. Can't believe someone really said "yeah let's rehearse this and actually sell this product."

Fortunately I just keep my laptop closed and use an attached display and keyboard and mouse, so I don't even remember if my M1 has a touch bar.

Also minor nit: it's seldom, not seldomly. Seldom certainly doesn't seem like an adverb, but it is.