The article byline indicates 08 May 2025 but response header shows Last-Modified: Fri, 09 May 2025 13:39:02 GMT and the earliest entry in the Internet Archive is Fri, 09 May 2025 12:28:01 GMT.
The white smoke emerged from the Vatican Thu, 08 May 2025 16:07 GMT and Pope Leo XIV was announced shortly thereafter.
Leonardo Rizzo, one of the researchers, claimed on X.com that they published before the Pope was elected.
An X user commented:
> “Guessed” after the fact. Interesting nonetheless and worth sharing before the event next time!
Rizzo replied:
> Thanks a lot! We shared it the 8th morning on linkedin, the university website and few other sources (italian press). Next time I’ll also share it on X
There’s a “Research” heading at the bottom that links to an article from today: “The Long Hand of Brussels on U.S. Businesses”, 09 May 2025 by Barbara Orlando.
Maybe they have a static site generator or even dynamic with caching that piled this in?
I haven't set up my about page yet but I was going to attribute much my design to their page. I've taken a ton of inspiration from hckernews.com because it's the front page I always frequented prior to making this. My primary issue with it was that I wanted more sorting capabilities (aggregate mode), and wanted to be able to see the highest engagement threads (by comments).
Very cool. I have something similar that's more of a running timeline than a view of the front page. I need to work on the controls so you can better specify thresholds.
this quite nice as it reminds me of a good ol rss reader.
regarding controls, one of the dumb reasons i wanted to remake hckernews is i don’t like the two taps to change the view.. im happy with the brutalist settings panel up top.
My experience is that they spit out reasonably looking solutions but then they don't even parse/compile.
They are OK to create small spinets of code and completion.
Anything past that they suck.
It's actually hilarious that AI "solved" bullshiting and and artistic fields much better and faster than say reasoning fields like math or programming.
It's the supreme irony. Even 5 years ago the status quo was saying artistic fields were completely safe from the AI apocalypse.
I disagree that the current generation of AI has "solved" artistic fields any more than it's solved math or programming.
Just as an LLM may be good at spitting out code that looks plausible but fails to work, diffusion models are good at spitting out art that looks shiny but is lacking in any real creativity or artistic expression.
> "looks shiny but is lacking in any real creativity or artistic expression."
My experience with that is that artistic milieus now sometimes even explicitly admit that the difference is who created the art.
"Human that suffered and created something" => high quality art
"The exact same thing but by a machine" => soulless claptrap
It's not about the end result.
A lot could be written about this but it's completely socially unacceptable.
Whether an analogous thing will happen with beautiful mathematical proofs or physical theories remains to be seen. I for one am curious, but as far as art is concerned, in my view it's done.
Truly great art, the kind that expands the field of artistry and makes people think, requires creativity; if you make something that's just a rehashing of existing art, that's not truly creative, it's boring and derivative.
This has nothing to do with whether a human or AI created the art, and I don't think it's controversial to say that AI-generated art is derivative; the models are literally trained to mimic existing artwork.
Creativity in AI art production is a fancy term for temperature that adds no semantic value.
Your "creativity" is just "high temperature" novel art done by the right person/entity.
This was something already obvious to anyone paying attention. Innovation from the "wrong people" was just "sophomoric", derivative or another euphemism, but the same thing from the right person would be a work of genius.
I would say the fact they do better than anyone could have imagined using just language points in the same direction, okay is very much up for debate imo.
It's like people enjoy extrapolating their surprise when it comes to LLMs, and I don't think it's very helpful.
The Florida Brightline is limited to 125 mph. Also no grade separation which is needed for higher speeds. Generally countries use grade separation when speeds exceed 110-120 mph. California really needs the 200-220 mph to make the trip worthwhile so it needs to be grade separated. A lot of the work done so far in California is the overpasses over freeways and roads its crossing.
Brightline has had a lot of fatalities due to lack of grade separation.
It's actually doing really well but it has not much to do with them being a red state and everything to do with them having an aging or tourist transit population that needs to get between cruise lines and theme parks.
Besides those cases there are not a lot of reasons to be transiting that route, or at least not nearly compared to the number of folks that would want to transit SF <-> LA. Totally different needs that are easier to address, and less pressure to prove out value / fewer digestible alternatives.
