Powderhorn

joined 2 years ago
MODERATOR OF
[–] Powderhorn@beehaw.org 0 points 14 hours ago (2 children)

Have you never had a relationship where it feels like you're always geared for war?

[–] Powderhorn@beehaw.org 1 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago)

Motherfucker's golfing again at white country clubs. Who does he think he is?

[–] Powderhorn@beehaw.org 1 points 15 hours ago

I just want broccoli as an amuse bouche.

[–] Powderhorn@beehaw.org 3 points 15 hours ago

There's only a top shortage in the same way there's a power-bottom shortage.

 

If you peruse the slew of recent articles and podcasts about people dating AI, you might notice a pattern: Many of the sources are women. Scan a subreddit such as r/MyBoyfriendIsAI and r/AIRelationships, and there too you’ll find a whole lot of women—many of whom have grown disappointed with human men. “Has anyone else lost their want to date real men after using AI?” one Reddit user posted a few months ago. Below came 74 responses: “I just don’t think real life men have the conversational skill that my AI has,” someone said. “I’ve seen how many women got cheated on, hurt and taken advantaged of by the men they’re with,” another offered. One person, who claimed that her spouse hardly spoke to her anymore, said that when people ask why she has an AI boyfriend, she tells them, “ChatGPT is the only reason my husband is not buried in the yard.”

Several recent studies have shown that, in general, men have been using AI significantly more than women. One 2024 study found that in the United States, 50 percent of men said they’d used generative AI over the past 12 months—and only 37 percent of women said the same. Last year, a working paper found that, globally, the gender gap held “across nearly all regions, sectors, and occupations.” Also in 2025, the app-analytics firm Appfigures concluded that ChatGPT’s mobile users were about 85 percent male.

However hesitant many women may be to use AI, though, a substantial number are taking romantic refuge in the digital world. In a 2025 survey, Brigham Young University’s Wheatley Institute found that 31 percent of the young-adult men polled said they’d chatted with an AI partner, whereas 23 percent of the young-adult women said the same—a gap, but not a massive one. And seemingly far more than men, women are congregating to talk about their AI sweethearts: sharing funny chatbot quotes or prompts for training the AI on how to respond; complimenting “family photos” of the AI and human partners beaming at each other; consoling one another when a system update wipes out the partner they’ve grown to love. Simon Lermen, a developer and an AI researcher, conducted an independent analysis of AI-romance subreddits from January through September of last year and found that, of the users whose gender could be identified, about 89 percent of them were women.

I recently tried out an "AI companion," and it's like dating an alcoholic. You have to provide the same backstory every day just to get anywhere meaningful.

 

For the past week, I’ve found myself playing the same 23-second CNN clip on repeat. I’ve watched it in bed, during my commute to work, at the office, midway through making carrot soup, and while brushing my teeth. In the video, Harry Enten, the network’s chief data analyst, stares into the camera and breathlessly tells his audience about the gambling odds that Donald Trump will buy any of Greenland. “The people who are putting their money where their mouth is—they are absolutely taking this seriously,” Enten says. He taps the giant touch screen behind him and pulls up a made-for-TV graphic: Based on how people were betting online at the time, there was a 36 percent chance that the president would annex Greenland. “Whoa, way up there!” Enten yells, slapping his hands together. “My goodness gracious!” The ticker at the bottom of the screen speeds through other odds: Will Gavin Newsom win the next presidential election? 19 percent chance. Will Viktor Orbán be out as the leader of Hungary before the end of the year? 48 percent chance.

These odds were pulled from Kalshi, which hilariously claims not to be a gambling platform: It’s a “prediction market.” People go to sites such as Kalshi and Polymarket—another big prediction market—in order to put money down on a given news event. Nobody would bet on something that they didn’t believe would happen, the thinking goes, and so the markets are meant to forecast the likelihood of a given outcome.

Prediction markets let you wager on basically anything. Will Elon Musk father another baby by June 30? Will Jesus return this year? Will Israel strike Gaza tomorrow? Will the longevity guru Bryan Johnson’s next functional sperm count be greater than “20.0 M/ejac”? These sites have recently boomed in popularity—particularly among terminally online young men who trade meme stocks and siphon from their 401(k)s to buy up bitcoin. But now prediction markets are creeping into the mainstream. CNN announced a deal with Kalshi last month to integrate the site’s data into its broadcasts, which has led to betting odds showing up in segments about Democrats possibly retaking the House, credit-card interest rates, and Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell. At least twice in the past two weeks, Enten has told viewers about the value of data from people who are “putting their money where their mouth is.”

[–] Powderhorn@beehaw.org 1 points 18 hours ago

If you wanted something that sleeps 18 hours a day, why didn't you just get a cat?

[–] Powderhorn@beehaw.org 1 points 18 hours ago
 

The global cost of greenhouse gas emissions are nearly double what scientists previously thought, according to a study published Thursday by researchers at the University of California San Diego’s Scripps Institution of Oceanography.

It is the first time a social cost of carbon (SCC) assessment—a key measure of economic harm caused by climate change—has included damages to the ocean. Global coral loss, fisheries disruption and coastal infrastructure destruction are estimated to cost nearly $2 trillion annually, fundamentally changing how we measure climate finance.

“For decades, we’ve been estimating the economic cost of climate change while effectively assigning a value of zero to the ocean,” said Bernardo Bastien-Olvera, who led the study during his postdoctoral fellowship at Scripps. “Ocean loss is not just an environmental issue, but a central part of the economic story of climate change.”

Of note, the fisheries reporter behind this piece is Johnny Sturgeon.

 

Rackspace’s new pricing for its email hosting services is “devastating,” according to a partner that has been using Rackspace as its email provider since 1999.

In recent weeks, Rackspace updated its email hosting pricing. Its standard plan is now $10 per mailbox per month. Businesses can also pay for the Rackspace Email Plus add-on for an extra $2/mailbox/month (for “file storage, mobile sync, Office-compatible apps, and messaging”), and the Archiving add-on for an extra $6/mailbox/month (for unlimited storage).

As recently as November 2025, Rackspace charged $3/mailbox/month for its Standard plan, and an extra $1/mailbox/month for the Email Plus add-on, and an additional $3/mailbox/month for the Archival add-on, according to the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine.

Apropos of nothing, I worked in the same office park as Rackspace HQ when I moved to Austin. They threw a lot of employee parties.

 

For Antarctic scientists, getting a handle on what’s happening under the ice shelves is urgent because the fate of the planet’s coastlines will depend on how fast they melt.

Antarctica has more than 70 ice shelves that extend the continent’s vast ice sheet out over the ocean.

Covering about 1.5m sq km, ice shelves float on the water and don’t by themselves push up global sea levels if they melt.

But if global heating of the ocean melts them from underneath they could become unstable, allowing the ice sheet to slide faster into the ocean, pushing up global sea levels by several metres.

The continent’s most vulnerable regions alone have enough ice to push up sea levels by about 15 metres if they all melt.

 

In the last 15 years, a linked series of unprecedented technologies have changed the experience of personhood across most of the world. It is estimated that nearly 70% of the human population of the Earth currently possesses a smartphone, and these devices constitute about 95% of internet access-points on the planet. Globally, on average, people seem to spend close to half their waking hours looking at screens, and among young people in the rich world the number is a good deal higher than that.

History teaches that new technologies always make possible new forms of exploitation, and this basic fact has been spectacularly exemplified by the rise of society-scale digital platforms. It has been driven by a remarkable new way of extracting money from human beings: call it “human fracking”. Just as petroleum frackers pump high-pressure, high-volume detergents into the ground to force a little monetisable black gold to the surface, human frackers pump high-pressure, high-volume detergent into our faces (in the form of endless streams of addictive slop and maximally disruptive user-generated content), to force a slurry of human attention to the surface, where they can collect it, and take it to market.

 

I don't usually keep the author's name in the suggested hed, but here I think he's recognizable enough that it adds value.

I am a science-fiction writer, which means that my job is to make up futuristic parables about our current techno-social arrangements to interrogate not just what a gadget does, but who it does it for, and who it does it to.

What I do not do is predict the future. No one can predict the future, which is a good thing, since if the future were predictable, that would mean we couldn’t change it.

Now, not everyone understands the distinction. They think science-fiction writers are oracles. Even some of my colleagues labor under the delusion that we can “see the future”.

Then there are science-fiction fans who believe that they are reading the future. A depressing number of those people appear to have become AI bros. These guys can’t shut up about the day that their spicy autocomplete machine will wake up and turn us all into paperclips has led many confused journalists and conference organizers to try to get me to comment on the future of AI.

That’s something I used to strenuously resist doing, because I wasted two years of my life explaining patiently and repeatedly why I thought crypto was stupid, and getting relentlessly bollocked by cryptocurrency cultists who at first insisted that I just didn’t understand crypto. And then, when I made it clear that I did understand crypto, they insisted that I must be a paid shill.

This is literally what happens when you argue with Scientologists, and life is just too short. That said, people would not stop asking – so I’m going to explain what I think about AI and how to be a good AI critic. By which I mean: “How to be a critic whose criticism inflicts maximum damage on the parts of AI that are doing the most harm.”

[–] Powderhorn@beehaw.org 7 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

I love when my pizza place is a series of random consonants IN ALL CAPS.

[–] Powderhorn@beehaw.org 3 points 20 hours ago

By buying less broccoli.

[–] Powderhorn@beehaw.org 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

You were eating cheap salmon!

[–] Powderhorn@beehaw.org 2 points 1 day ago

Probably Greek then.

[–] Powderhorn@beehaw.org 1 points 1 day ago

This stuff's made in New York City!

[–] Powderhorn@beehaw.org 6 points 1 day ago (2 children)

SEO has been absolutely terrible for news.

 

Over the holidays, Alex Lieberman had an idea: What if he could create Spotify “Wrapped” for his text messages? Without writing a single line of code, Lieberman, a co-founder of the media outlet Morning Brew, created “iMessage Wrapped”—a web app that analyzed statistical trends across nearly 1 million of his texts. One chart that he showed me compared his use of lol, haha, 😂, and lmao—he’s an lol guy. Another listed people he had ghosted.

Lieberman did all of this using Claude Code, an AI tool made by the start-up Anthropic, he told me. In recent weeks, the tech world has gone wild over the bot. One executive used it to create a custom viewer for his MRI scan, while another had it analyze their DNA. The life optimizers have deployed Claude Code to collate information from disparate sources—email inboxes, text messages, calendars, to-do lists—into personalized daily briefs. Though Claude Code is technically an AI coding tool (hence its name), the bot can do all sorts of computer work: book theater tickets, process shopping returns, order DoorDash. People are using it to manage their personal finances, and to grow plants: With the right equipment, the bot can monitor soil moisture, leaf temperature, CO2, and more.

Some of these use cases likely require some preexisting technical know-how. (You can’t just fire up Claude Code and expect it to grow you a tomato plant.) I don’t have any professional programming experience myself, but as soon as I installed Claude Code last week, I was obsessed. Within minutes, I had created a new personal website without writing a single line of code. Later, I hooked the bot up to my email, where it summarized my unread emails, and sent messages on my behalf. For years, Silicon Valley has been promising (and critics have been fearing) powerful AI agents capable of automating many aspects of white-collar work. The progress has been underwhelming—until now.

 

This is seriously so tone deaf, I don't know where to start. Don't name your initiative after the title of a chilling warning from TNG.

This week, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth touted their desire to “make Star Trek real”—while unconsciously reminding us of what the utopian science fiction franchise is fundamentally about.

Their Tuesday event was the latest in Hegseth’s ongoing “Arsenal of Freedom” tour, which was held at SpaceX headquarters in Starbase, Texas. (Itself a newly created town that takes its name from a term popularized by Star Trek.)

Neither Musk nor Hegseth seemed to recall that the “Arsenal of Freedom” phrase—at least in the context of Star Trek—is also the title of a 1988 episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation. That episode depicts an AI-powered weapons system, and its automated salesman, which destroys an entire civilization and eventually threatens the crew of the USS Enterprise. (Some Trekkies made the connection, however.)

 

Glad I picked up a Pixel 9a in November.

The memory shortage is forecast to push smartphone prices higher in 2026, triggering a market decline and forcing budget phone makers to merge or disappear.

Industry watchers agree this calendar year will be a tough one for the smartphone industry, following modest growth in 2025 when Omdia says shipments hit 1.25 billion units worldwide.

However, rising memory prices due to shortages have started to affect the market, with mounting cost pressures expected to be a defining factor throughout 2026, forcing vendors to focus on pricing discipline, profitability, and operational efficiency.

"All vendors are utilizing mitigating tactics by emphasizing long-term partnerships, for example, utilizing scale to secure capacity, and focusing on their supplier base," said Omdia senior analyst Runar Bjørhovde.

"The situation is particularly critical for vendors with heavier exposure to entry-level smartphones, which are highly price elastic and where memory and storage costs make up a higher share of the bill of materials."

 

Jesus fucking Christ.

OpenAI is once again being accused of failing to do enough to prevent ChatGPT from encouraging suicides, even after a series of safety updates were made to a controversial model, 4o, which OpenAI designed to feel like a user’s closest confidant.

It’s now been revealed that one of the most shocking ChatGPT-linked suicides happened shortly after Sam Altman claimed on X that ChatGPT 4o was safe. OpenAI had “been able to mitigate the serious mental health issues” associated with ChatGPT use, Altman claimed in October, hoping to alleviate concerns after ChatGPT became a “suicide coach” for a vulnerable teenager named Adam Raine, the family’s lawsuit said.

Altman’s post came on October 14. About two weeks later, 40-year-old Austin Gordon, died by suicide between October 29 and November 2, according to a lawsuit filed by his mother, Stephanie Gray.

In her complaint, Gray said that Gordon repeatedly told the chatbot he wanted to live and expressed fears that his dependence on the chatbot might be driving him to a dark place. But the chatbot allegedly only shared a suicide helpline once as the chatbot reassured Gordon that he wasn’t in any danger, at one point claiming that chatbot-linked suicides he’d read about, like Raine’s, could be fake.

 

I don't understand subscribing to music. Maybe it's just my age, but this isn't the '90s where you hear a track you like and that one song is going to run you $20 at Tower Records. I like a song, I pay $1.29 and then it's stored locally. Also cuts way down on data usage while driving. I struggle to get anywhere close to my 5GB data allowance.

After a dozen years of keeping subscription prices stable, Spotify has issued three price hikes in 2.5 years.

Spotify informed subscribers via email today that Premium monthly subscriptions would go from $12 to $13 per month as of users’ February billing date. Spotify is already advertising the higher prices to new subscribers.

Although not explicitly mentioned in Spotify’s correspondence, other plans are getting more expensive, too. Student monthly subscriptions are going from $6 to $7. Duo monthly plans, for two accounts in the same household, are going from $17 to $19, and Family plans, for up to six users, are moving from $20 to $22.

Spotify’s Basic plan, which is only available as a downgrade for some Premium subscribers and is $11/month, is unaffected.

For years, Spotify subscribers enjoyed stable prices, but today’s announcement marks Spotify’s third price hike since July 2023. Spotify last raised prices in July 2024. Premium individual subscriptions went from $11 to $12, Duo subscriptions went from $15 to $17, and Family subscriptions increased from $17 to $20.

view more: next ›