I pre-ordered a round one which is going to be my third Pebble and I'm excited for it, but there is some really good competition nowadays. Casio makes a watch with similar display technology, solar power so the battery life is basically infinite (it doesn't even have a way to charge with a wire) and bluetooth time sync to your phone. It's not a smart watch so it doesn't have apps or notifications or customizable watch faces - the things that make the Pebble really fun - but as a watch it's hard to beat a GW-BX5600 if all you need is time-related functions like stop watch, timer, multiple time zones etc.

> if all you need is time-related functions like stop watch, timer, multiple time zones etc.

But if you just need that, almost any watch will do. The Pebble is clearly not made for those people.

I think it's made for those people as well as people who want a hackable customizable wearable.

It's absolutely wild to see how unevenly distributed the future we're living in is.

That's almost that famous quote by William Gibson: "The future is already here — it's just not very evenly distributed."

Is it any surprise when wealth inequality has been increasing in the USA for the past 50 years? Globally the picture is even more bleak.

So basically you're okay with the trains and the camps, just not the showers and incinerators?

AI can plan and do architectural work - just not amazingly well. Treat it as an intern or a new grad at best. Though this capability has been increasing pretty rapidly, so who knows where we'll be in a few years.

From your link:

Causes for denaturalization under the 1906 Act included fraud, racial ineligibility and lack of “good moral character.” In 1907, Congress expanded the laws on loss of citizenship by marking for expatriation all U.S.-born citizens who had naturalized in foreign nations and women who had married foreigners.

I'm not sure we should want to go back and dredge up the shadiest old laws for application today.

The sad thing is, laws like this are almost worse when they are used infrequently, since they the government can apply selective enforcement against people it doesn't like but are otherwise legal (we're seeing that now). Laws like this should be dredged up and revoked because they are otherwise landmines and secret weapons waiting to be abused by future (or current) governments.

This isn't some obscure law that's being "dredged up." It's been enforced continuously, including under Obama. It's just being made an enforcement priority. Previously, it was prosecuted only in serious cases, usually involving national security threats. But there's no good reason why it shouldn't be enforced for more mundane cases of immigration fraud, which are well within the scope of the law.

If it's not a serious case or a national security threat, why impose de-naturalization quotas? Surely if there are real threats out there we should be dedicating the energy to those?

(Also since you brought up Obama, why was Obama able to deport so many more people than Trump? And able to do it without terrorizing US cities with secret/poorly trained police, or needing a DHS with a larger budget than most other countries' militaries?)

You're fixated on a "technically this is legal" argument. But you're (perhaps willfully) missing the larger repercussions. This administration has lied and misled about their opponents committing fraud. You know they are not acting in good faith. So why would we want to further empower capricious, inconsistent, and politically motivated behavior?

You need to enforce it because illegal immigration is harmful in and of itself, even if the immigrants aren’t criminals or national security threats. Why do we enforce speed limits even when the person doesn’t cause a serious accident? Because the point of the law is to create a deterrent effect that compels people to follow a certain process.

Obama had an easier time deporting people because, at the time, most people in his party accepted the view that illegal immigration is harmful even without some other crime: https://www.foxnews.com/media/2010-obama-clip-goes-viral-whe.... Back then, even most Democrats embraced requiring immigrant to assimilate. If you think assimilation is important, then it naturally follows that we have to control the number of immigrants at a level where America changes them before they change America. Today, many of them reject assimilation in favor of multi-culturalism. If you embrace multi-culturalism, it’s hard to justify any limit on the number of immigrants. And at that point, illegal immigration just becomes a technicality.

Can you elaborate more about how you think it's harmful despite having nothing to do with crime?

For the same reason people fishing without a license is harmful even if it's not otherwise criminal. It's not about one fish. It's about a system that's designed to avoid social harm by limiting the aggregate volume of an activity, and people fraudulently bypassing those limits.

Does fishing without a license warrant the same large-scale violent carceral approach that DHS is taking? That would be an insane, disruptive overreaction for something that poses no public safety danger.

> So why would we want to further empower capricious, inconsistent, and politically motivated behavior?

Well because I want the laws enforced. Other politicians had my whole life to enforce immigration law and they chose not to. If it's between this and unchecked immigration status quo, I choose this. This is a lesson to respectfully enforce the rule of law and the will of the people lest they enforce it disrespectfully later.

What Trump proved was that prior administrations simply chose not to enforce the immigration laws. Last year was the lowest number of border crossings since 1970, a nearly 90% reduction compared to 2022: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2026/02/02/migrant-e... https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2026/02/02/migrant-e.... It was accomplished by simply choosing to enforce the law.

> It was accomplished by simply choosing to enforce the law.

They accomplished it by terrorizing people based on the color of their skin. There's nothing "simple" about creating a gigantic secret police force. There's nothing "lawful" about blatantly ignoring court orders.

You already conceded that there is no public danger. Your argument boils down yet again Great Replacement nonsense about immigrants being bad for America.

> Well because I want the laws enforced.

All laws? Because there are several that the administration are actively breaking. Surely you want those enforced too? How about court orders?

> Other politicians had my whole life to enforce immigration law and they chose not to.

I mean, Obama was way more effective at deporting illegal immigrants than Trump. Even by raw numbers. So I'm not sure how you can honestly argue that de-naturalization quotas are necessary now, when they weren't before for an even more effective administration.

Your argument makes no logical sense. The presence of one invalid criterion doesn't invalidate the whole law. In the 1950s, banks used to deny people loans because they had bad credit and because of their race. So does that mean that in 2026 banks shouldn't be able to deny people loans for having bad credit?

The modern law, 8 USC 1451, was enacted in 1952, and was amended repeatedly, including under the Clinton administration. Obama launched a major enforcement operation under the law back in 2009: https://www.hoppocklawfirm.com/operation-janus-operation-sec...

I'm not making an argument, you are. You suggested that the long history going back to 1906 makes these actions normal. I'm merely pointing out that what they were doing back then was immoral, which may undermine your argument inasmuch as things that are immoral are not normal to expect from our government.

I would genuinely love to denaturalise those with poor moral character. That sounds lovely.

At some point when the compounding was ramping up it was difficult to get the drugs even with a prescription and being willing to pay the full no-insurance price. Nowadays you can mostly get it, but insurance coverage is spotty. Because of weird incentives, the no-insurance prices of drugs are highly inflated so the amount that they cost isn't a realistic price for most people to afford. The manufacturers offer coupons but the conditions on them, and the fact that they still leave you with a pretty inflated price tag means that the compounded versions like what HIMS sell are the most cost effective option for a lot of people - it's still highly marked up, but to a level that is manageable for way more people.

Alternatively, an intelligence agency might publish what they want you to think they know, or simply what they want you to think.

The fifth amendment gives you the right to be silent, but they didn't write in anything about biometrics.

Is it good or bad when companies research their own products and release the results honestly?

Anthropic is kinda odd in that it seems to be still largely a research company that also has some products they sorta care about.

I just think it's hilarious that on one hand Anthropic will do research that basically concludes that using AI assistance makes you worse at your job.

While on the other hand want you to buy their AI assistance products for obscene prices, and hope you get addicted to them so you can never stop giving them money.

They also loudly brag about how none of their engineers actually write code anymore - while the quality of their products is actually dog.

It's worse than snakeoil that does nothing - it's like they are selling you poison while telling you it'll kill you. We're supposed to applaud them for being honest? It's a joke. They are basically drug dealers getting high on their own supply.

Yeah all this seems to be the wrong tech at the wrong time. The actual technology is amazing, but its getting mixed into all this greed and stupidity which is innate in our humanity, especially with the sort of society we have in the US. Heck I even mooch off of googles freebie gemini so its not like I've got any room to talk but I'm human too lol

A challenge: can you write down a definition of thinking that supports this claim? And then, how is that definition different from what someone who wasn't explicitly trying to exclude LLM-based AI might give?

It’s a philosophical question, and I personally have very little interest in philosophing. LLMs are technically limited to what is in their training dataset