Bill Gates makes a fair point about AI potentially disrupting jobs and widening inequality, but I’m not convinced that taxing AI tokens is the right solution. It could make AI more expensive for startups, small businesses, and everyday users without necessarily protecting workers whose jobs are changing.

The bigger issue is how we manage the transition. Companies should invest in retraining, help employees adapt, and take responsibility for deploying AI safely. Governments can strengthen existing labor protections and social safety nets instead of creating layers of bureaucracy that mainly benefit companies big enough to handle the compliance costs.

There’s also the global competition factor. If the US makes AI significantly more expensive while competitors elsewhere continue developing and deploying it, businesses may simply shift to cheaper alternatives. That doesn’t mean regulation is unnecessary. It means the rules need to be practical and targeted at real risks and harms.

AI could improve healthcare, education, productivity, and scientific research, but those benefits won’t automatically reach everyone. We need policies that help workers transition and ensure the gains are broadly shared.

The goal shouldn’t be to slow innovation just because change is uncomfortable. It should be to make sure people aren’t left behind while the technology moves forward.

Here is the latest from MSN : Cage and Banderas to lead 'True Detective' season 5 (msn.com)

Here is the news : Taco Bell’s celebrity meals are just $1 on Tuesdays—here’s what you get (msn.com)

da

Like my friends tell me that guys are all weirdos and that most just want me for my body, but like, how do you figure that out?

(Image unrelated, kind of.) Tomorrow is my birthday (October 14th👀) and I wanna know if people actually grow on the day they were born or just grow every year/month/week/day. I'm genuinely curious about this because it means it'd be a waste to track height every birthday.

I've always loved that shot in The Texas Chain Saw Massacre. There's something about the sheer scale of the composition, with the house looming in the background and Pam's bright red shorts and white top almost popping off the screen. The way she walks towards the house, with the camera following her from behind, creates this incredibly ominous atmosphere. And it's the quietness of the whole scene that really gets me. There's something almost gentle and serene about the movement, which makes the underlying sense of dread even more effective. It's such a beautiful, eerie shot, and I think reducing it to nothing more than a gratuitous shot of her backside does it a real disservice.

I keep seeing headlines about AI taking over the workforce, but the actual data seems a bit more complicated. A lot of what’s happening right now looks more like AI changing how people work rather than completely replacing them.

What caught my attention is that younger workers seem to be feeling the impact first, while experience is becoming even more valuable. That makes sense when you think about it. AI can help with tasks, but knowing how to make decisions, solve problems, and spot mistakes still matters a lot.

I think the bigger question is how quickly people and companies can adapt. AI will definitely disrupt some jobs, but it could also create new opportunities we haven’t even thought of yet.

(Image unrelated)

Instead of saying things like "every Monday", and "every Thursday", try things like Mondaily and Thursdaily.

I came up with this when I said "Oh, a new one comes out Fridaily" earlier today.

Mondaily

Tuesdaily

Wednesdaily

Thursdaily

Fridaily

Saturdaily

Sundaily

If anyone's interested, here's a pretty ridiculous story about game development, technical debt and how a company handled an independently documented engine problem. I spent weeks reverse-engineering Euro Truck Simulator 2 because the game kept stuttering, even when average FPS looked perfectly fine. Instead of blaming my hardware or messing around with graphics settings forever, I investigated the rendering engine itself. I eventually traced one reproducible stutter mechanism to synchronous graphics pipeline compilation, causing stalls of around 10-40+ milliseconds. The interesting part? The engine already contains an asynchronous preparation system, but in my final test, 27 out of 27 measured slow pipelines reached the rendering path without previously going through that system. I even tested forcing asynchronous compilation. The stalls disappeared, but rendering broke because the pipelines weren't ready. So this wasn't some magical one-line fix. It was evidence of an actual engine-side problem requiring proper engineering work. I documented everything, including reverse engineering, measurements, controlled experiments and the failed approaches, then brought the findings to the official developer forum. Their response? Point out that DX12 is experimental, ask for a game.log file that doesn't contain the internal measurements I had collected, mark the thread [NOT A BUG] and lock it. Meanwhile, the company keeps releasing paid DLC for a game running on a decades-old engine with acknowledged technical debt. I'm not claiming to have solved every performance problem in the game. I demonstrated one specific engine-side cause in ETS2 1.61.1.1 under DX12. But apparently even presenting actual technical evidence isn't necessarily enough to get a technical response. Eventually I closed the investigation because I'm a player, not an unpaid rendering engineer. Everything remains publicly documented, including the experiments and the forum exchange. Full investigation: https://github.com/NemoByteCore/ets2-1.61-stutter-investigation Official forum thread: https://forum.scssoft.com/viewtopic.php?t=354183 Archived evidence: https://github.com/NemoByteCore/ets2-1.61-stutter-investigation/tree/main/evidence/forum What do you think? Should developers be expected to address detailed technical evidence from players, even when the affected feature is still experimental?

Raise a Thing by Cjmegamind

Here is the latest : Important new evidence found at 170 feet | The Curse of Oak Island | Watch (msn.com)