Aside: folks living near bike paths where this happens are going to suffer. I don't know what the solution is, but increasing volume to defeat increasing sound-proofing seems like a recipe for noise pollution.

> “Ultra-processed foods often carry chemicals like phthalates, BPA and acrylamides, which can leach from packaging or even from the plastic machinery used during processing,” says co-author Angelina Baric, a graduate student in the Department of Kinesiology.

> “These compounds are known to disrupt hormones, and that may be part of why we’re seeing a link."

Reminds me of The Plastic Detox on Netflix.

> some tech job candidates have begun asking about what AI compute budget they will have access to if they decide to join.

I think the title is misleading.

That said, a digital company town would be consistent for 2026.

> At the biggest tech companies, new graduates went from roughly a third of all hires in 2019 to somewhere around 7% today. In the US, entry-level hiring at the top 15 tech firms fell 25% from 2023 to 2024 alone.

The title says the pipeline is collapsing, but the article describes a reduction. In my workplace, hiring stopped for teams working on non-AI products because all the money went to the teams building AI products. I would guess the AI teams wouldn't describe their pipeline as collapsing. It seems companies are going all in on AI and laying off or ignoring everything else.

I think a point is being missed here.

The article seems inconsistent. It presents evidence that Netflix's bid failed because they didn't counter Paramount's bid, and evidence that the president likes to be involved, but no evidence that Netflix's bid failed because of the president.

For example:

>A White House official, granted anonymity to discuss the potential acquisition, insisted that Rice had nothing to do with why Netflix lost the deal.

>It was “100 percent because of the bid,” the official said. “Netflix could have submitted an alternative offer and they chose not to.”

>A person familiar with the thinking said Trump promised to remain neutral “and he has.”

>Still, the episode underscores how more than 10 years after Trump came down the escalator, many of the country’s most powerful figures still sometimes misjudge or underestimate the president.

Yes. I'm an eng at a big tech co on a non-AI team in SF. Money's tight. No hiring or promotions.

Senior folks are doing the work junior folks used to do, and getting negative performance reviews for it. Negative performance reviews are now leading to quicker dismissals. These dismissals aren't considered layoffs. There are also ongoing layoffs.

Simultaneously, promotion requirements are going up. I feel like I need to be launching entirely new products to meet expectations, but at the same time, routine bugs need fixing. My team is also being picked for parts by our parent org.

I get the impression funding is more generous on AI-specific teams, but the pressure is higher, and there's a lot of competition to join those teams.

It's an opinion piece from a former Square exec, Aaron Zamost. He writes: "... when the job market is tight, hiring top talent can be nothing short of a matter of survival. And they are fishing in a largely progressive pond ... what did companies do when a generous compensation package was no longer enough to win over candidates? They instead sold a sense of belonging ... A new economic reality following the height of the pandemic ... Because they no longer needed to compete for labor at any cost, executives exhausted by their formerly empowered employees were happy to take back the control that they’d ceded ... The recent reassertion of managerial prerogative was only possible in an economic environment where top executives could flex their muscles like a boss."

"Army" is a loaded term. That aside, the article does a good job describing several car companies that are interested in, and well-positioned to, develop humanoid robots.

I read the article, but i don't know enough about finance to understand why this is bad.

The title makes it sound dubious, but it seems like another way of seeing it is nvidia diversifying from just selling chips to operating datacenters, via a "special purpose vehicle" (spv) entity. Instead of xai selling bonds to raise money to pay for chips, they lease usage from the spv.

Seems comparable to a new datacenter company starting up to serve xai. Since nvidia is funding the new company, though, I suppose it gives the impression there's more money in the ai market than there actually is. Xai raising debt would make it more obvious.

I like the mistake/conflict distinction, but in this case the conflict theorist People elected Elites (who proceeded to wage war on the People, broadly speaking). The dissonance hurts my brain.