Simon Farnsworth
@simon.farnz.org.uk
But we can't put in the infrastructure because it's incredibly expensive for a short while, and if only congestion would reduce, the cost of putting in the infrastructure would nosedive - fewer buses needed, fewer drivers to recruit etc.
November 24, 2025 at 8:22 AM
But we can't put in the infrastructure because it's incredibly expensive for a short while, and if only congestion would reduce, the cost of putting in the infrastructure would nosedive - fewer buses needed, fewer drivers to recruit etc.
Note that the code a senior IC outputs is *also* a document communicating a plan to junior developers. It just happens to be machine-comprehensible as well as clear to humans.
November 22, 2025 at 12:30 PM
Note that the code a senior IC outputs is *also* a document communicating a plan to junior developers. It just happens to be machine-comprehensible as well as clear to humans.
Bad poetry breaking an "AI" would be extremely close to reality, though. And it'd be funny to see poetry like "I know you guard the greatest treasure/we own it, open at your leisure!" confuse an AI-analog into giving up.
November 22, 2025 at 12:28 PM
Bad poetry breaking an "AI" would be extremely close to reality, though. And it'd be funny to see poetry like "I know you guard the greatest treasure/we own it, open at your leisure!" confuse an AI-analog into giving up.
That's part of what makes her, IMO; she was content being "the default" for her golem body, until she realised there was an alternative. And the more she learnt, the more she became convinced that this was right for her.
November 21, 2025 at 9:04 PM
That's part of what makes her, IMO; she was content being "the default" for her golem body, until she realised there was an alternative. And the more she learnt, the more she became convinced that this was right for her.
And also the portrayal of Gladys the golem; Pratchett was very clear that she said she was a female golem, ergo she was a female golem.
November 20, 2025 at 7:56 PM
And also the portrayal of Gladys the golem; Pratchett was very clear that she said she was a female golem, ergo she was a female golem.
Note that most of the places that can panic have non-panicking alternatives. The challenge IME is that routing errors upwards can involve a major refactor, and if the only response can possibly be "crash and restart the program", why do that?
November 19, 2025 at 6:13 PM
Note that most of the places that can panic have non-panicking alternatives. The challenge IME is that routing errors upwards can involve a major refactor, and if the only response can possibly be "crash and restart the program", why do that?
Note that a significant effect of this will be lower interest rates on protected accounts; the benefit is that the bits we must bail out if they fail aren't taking risks, and the cost is that low-risk accounts have lower rewards than today. You'd need an investment account to get high interest.
November 18, 2025 at 3:15 PM
Note that a significant effect of this will be lower interest rates on protected accounts; the benefit is that the bits we must bail out if they fail aren't taking risks, and the cost is that low-risk accounts have lower rewards than today. You'd need an investment account to get high interest.
Incidentally, the reason we don't have that is that currently, banks "bail out" (internally) bad risk in the high risk accounts from low risk savings and current accounts. Regulation is needed to stop that happening.
November 18, 2025 at 2:37 PM
Incidentally, the reason we don't have that is that currently, banks "bail out" (internally) bad risk in the high risk accounts from low risk savings and current accounts. Regulation is needed to stop that happening.
Nothing stops people having all of a current account and savings account (protected capital, low reward) and an investment savings account (higher risk, higher reward) elsewhere, with regulation making it easy to move money around between the three accounts.
November 18, 2025 at 2:36 PM
Nothing stops people having all of a current account and savings account (protected capital, low reward) and an investment savings account (higher risk, higher reward) elsewhere, with regulation making it easy to move money around between the three accounts.
I think there is, yes, but it will hurt in a capitalist society. An organisation can offer FSCS protected accounts, but is then heavily regulated and can't take risks.
Or it can not, and then it's high risk, high reward.
Or it can not, and then it's high risk, high reward.
November 18, 2025 at 2:36 PM
I think there is, yes, but it will hurt in a capitalist society. An organisation can offer FSCS protected accounts, but is then heavily regulated and can't take risks.
Or it can not, and then it's high risk, high reward.
Or it can not, and then it's high risk, high reward.
In particular, if we cleanly separated payments from investments, we wouldn't have to bail out high-risk mistakes. Just let the associated banks go under. But we've instead intermingled investments with socially necessary stuff, such that we can't let them fail.
November 18, 2025 at 12:48 PM
In particular, if we cleanly separated payments from investments, we wouldn't have to bail out high-risk mistakes. Just let the associated banks go under. But we've instead intermingled investments with socially necessary stuff, such that we can't let them fail.
The problem is the "winner takes all" side; no-one can afford to risk missing 10,000x returns. Add in some bad maths around the risk presented by repackaging, and insufficient (regulated) separation between banking as safe payments and storage (socially necessary) and investments, and you get a mess
November 18, 2025 at 12:48 PM
The problem is the "winner takes all" side; no-one can afford to risk missing 10,000x returns. Add in some bad maths around the risk presented by repackaging, and insufficient (regulated) separation between banking as safe payments and storage (socially necessary) and investments, and you get a mess
It's the nature of capitalism; we have a "winner takes all" economy, and thus it's worth gambling on the slim chance that $1bn now will make you a winner.
November 18, 2025 at 11:05 AM
It's the nature of capitalism; we have a "winner takes all" economy, and thus it's worth gambling on the slim chance that $1bn now will make you a winner.
It's a "perfect world" versus "world we live in" situation. In a perfect world, self-driving cars would be guaranteed safer than human drivers.
In the real world, we'd see standards lowered to make self-driving cars cheaper.
In the real world, we'd see standards lowered to make self-driving cars cheaper.
November 15, 2025 at 2:05 PM
It's a "perfect world" versus "world we live in" situation. In a perfect world, self-driving cars would be guaranteed safer than human drivers.
In the real world, we'd see standards lowered to make self-driving cars cheaper.
In the real world, we'd see standards lowered to make self-driving cars cheaper.
With the wrinkle that you don't have to actually be a dual national; you just need the Home Sec to outline a way in which you could be a dual national if you apply to the right people.
November 14, 2025 at 1:50 PM
With the wrinkle that you don't have to actually be a dual national; you just need the Home Sec to outline a way in which you could be a dual national if you apply to the right people.
Part of it will be comprehensibility of failures.
We have thousands of years of people thinking about what happens if people make mistakes. We have maybe 75 years of thinking about automation making mistakes.
Given the consequences of failure, we need to understand why it could happen.
We have thousands of years of people thinking about what happens if people make mistakes. We have maybe 75 years of thinking about automation making mistakes.
Given the consequences of failure, we need to understand why it could happen.
November 12, 2025 at 1:44 PM
Part of it will be comprehensibility of failures.
We have thousands of years of people thinking about what happens if people make mistakes. We have maybe 75 years of thinking about automation making mistakes.
Given the consequences of failure, we need to understand why it could happen.
We have thousands of years of people thinking about what happens if people make mistakes. We have maybe 75 years of thinking about automation making mistakes.
Given the consequences of failure, we need to understand why it could happen.
That is using a VPN to access porn, but doing so for the purpose of preventing UK users of the site from being directed to porn. Is this a bad use for the tech?
I suspect politicians are only thinking about the easy cases, not the edges.
I suspect politicians are only thinking about the easy cases, not the edges.
November 12, 2025 at 12:54 PM
That is using a VPN to access porn, but doing so for the purpose of preventing UK users of the site from being directed to porn. Is this a bad use for the tech?
I suspect politicians are only thinking about the easy cases, not the edges.
I suspect politicians are only thinking about the easy cases, not the edges.
There's also edge cases to consider; a previous employer used VPNs as part of global content moderation, so that a site that showed filth to users in the UK (except our offices in London) couldn't slip under the radar - VPN to appear as a normal Brit, and determine that the content is bad.
November 12, 2025 at 12:52 PM
There's also edge cases to consider; a previous employer used VPNs as part of global content moderation, so that a site that showed filth to users in the UK (except our offices in London) couldn't slip under the radar - VPN to appear as a normal Brit, and determine that the content is bad.
It's not just new construction that costs on a geographic basis; it's also ongoing maintenance.
Chances of weather damage per km per year do not change with the user count, for example.
Chances of weather damage per km per year do not change with the user count, for example.
November 10, 2025 at 1:28 PM
It's not just new construction that costs on a geographic basis; it's also ongoing maintenance.
Chances of weather damage per km per year do not change with the user count, for example.
Chances of weather damage per km per year do not change with the user count, for example.
Geographic coverage requirements; the cost of fulfilling that need is set by the area covered, not the number of people in that area.
This affects telecoms, electricity and water.
This affects telecoms, electricity and water.
November 10, 2025 at 12:28 PM
Geographic coverage requirements; the cost of fulfilling that need is set by the area covered, not the number of people in that area.
This affects telecoms, electricity and water.
This affects telecoms, electricity and water.
When you say "IG debt', do you mean investment grade debt, or Instagram debt?
Both expansions fit in this case :-(
Both expansions fit in this case :-(
November 9, 2025 at 6:59 PM
When you say "IG debt', do you mean investment grade debt, or Instagram debt?
Both expansions fit in this case :-(
Both expansions fit in this case :-(
Deutsche Bank here isn't an investor; it's lending money to investors, and if the DCs become low-value, the risk is that the investors go bankrupt, and DB loses the repayment stream.
November 6, 2025 at 5:06 PM
Deutsche Bank here isn't an investor; it's lending money to investors, and if the DCs become low-value, the risk is that the investors go bankrupt, and DB loses the repayment stream.
The problem financially is that you'd be taking a huge hit if you do that. As AI infrastructure, it's worth (say) $100m/year; as a server farm, it's worth $1m/year, and as electricity generation, it's worth $10k/year (since DCs import a lot of electricity as well).
November 6, 2025 at 4:53 PM
The problem financially is that you'd be taking a huge hit if you do that. As AI infrastructure, it's worth (say) $100m/year; as a server farm, it's worth $1m/year, and as electricity generation, it's worth $10k/year (since DCs import a lot of electricity as well).
Even then, DNSSEC works on delegated trust, not zero trust. You trust the root, who delegates trust to TLD operators, who delegate trust onwards.
November 6, 2025 at 1:22 PM
Even then, DNSSEC works on delegated trust, not zero trust. You trust the root, who delegates trust to TLD operators, who delegate trust onwards.
If it's not a compiler-detected break, then it's all just maintainer vibes, and wanting coolness from your peeps.
What counts as major/minor/patch when not compiler-detected is a case of what the maintainer feels is major/minor/patch
What counts as major/minor/patch when not compiler-detected is a case of what the maintainer feels is major/minor/patch
November 4, 2025 at 8:12 AM
If it's not a compiler-detected break, then it's all just maintainer vibes, and wanting coolness from your peeps.
What counts as major/minor/patch when not compiler-detected is a case of what the maintainer feels is major/minor/patch
What counts as major/minor/patch when not compiler-detected is a case of what the maintainer feels is major/minor/patch