Joined December 2009
902 Photos and videos
Daisy P-L retweeted
🚨BREAKING: Berkeley researchers spent 8 months inside a tech company watching how employees actually use AI. The promise was simple: AI will save you time. Do less. Work smarter. The opposite happened. Workers didn't use AI to finish early and go home. They used it to take on more. More tasks. More projects. More hours. Nobody asked them to. They did it to themselves. The researchers sat inside the company two days a week for 8 months. They watched 200 employees in real time. They tracked work channels. They conducted 40 interviews across engineering, product, design, and operations. Here's what they found. AI made everything feel faster, so people filled every gap. They sent prompts during lunch. Before meetings. Late at night. The natural stopping points in the workday disappeared. People ran multiple AI agents in the background while writing code, drafting documents, and sitting in meetings simultaneously. It felt like momentum. It felt productive. But when they stepped back, they described feeling stretched, busier, and completely unable to disconnect. 83% said AI increased their workload. Not decreased. Increased. 62% of associates and 61% of entry-level workers reported burnout. Only 38% of executives felt the same strain. The people doing the actual work absorbed the damage while leadership celebrated the productivity numbers. Then came the trap nobody saw coming. When one person uses AI to take on extra work, everyone else feels like they're falling behind. So the whole team speeds up. Nobody formally raises expectations. But the new pace quietly becomes the default. What AI made possible became what was expected. The researchers gave it a name: workload creep. It looks like productivity at first. Then it becomes the new baseline. Then it becomes burnout. AI was supposed to give you your time back. Instead it's eating more of it. And the worst part? You're doing it to yourself. Voluntarily.
314
2,179
6,963
1,072,807
Daisy P-L retweeted
Feb 20
Meta’s El Paso data center plans to link 813 gas generators into a single on-site power system. Utilities can’t deliver new grid capacity fast enough, so developers are building “behind-the-meter” gas plants beside their servers. xAI showed proved this model in Memphis, running largely on portable generators before EPA required emissions permits. Cleanview counts 47 such off-grid projects nationwide now including Meta, OpenAI, Oracle and Chevron. We talk a lot about the near-term AI power story being nuclear or fusion, but not just yet. washingtonpost.com/business/…
31
53
249
65,318
Daisy P-L retweeted
🚨 Holy shit… Stanford just published the most uncomfortable paper on LLM reasoning I’ve read in a long time. This isn’t a flashy new model or a leaderboard win. It’s a systematic teardown of how and why large language models keep failing at reasoning even when benchmarks say they’re doing great. The paper does one very smart thing upfront: it introduces a clean taxonomy instead of more anecdotes. The authors split reasoning into non-embodied and embodied. Non-embodied reasoning is what most benchmarks test and it’s further divided into informal reasoning (intuition, social judgment, commonsense heuristics) and formal reasoning (logic, math, code, symbolic manipulation). Embodied reasoning is where models must reason about the physical world, space, causality, and action under real constraints. Across all three, the same failure patterns keep showing up. > First are fundamental failures baked into current architectures. Models generate answers that look coherent but collapse under light logical pressure. They shortcut, pattern-match, or hallucinate steps instead of executing a consistent reasoning process. > Second are application-specific failures. A model that looks strong on math benchmarks can quietly fall apart in scientific reasoning, planning, or multi-step decision making. Performance does not transfer nearly as well as leaderboards imply. > Third are robustness failures. Tiny changes in wording, ordering, or context can flip an answer entirely. The reasoning wasn’t stable to begin with; it just happened to work for that phrasing. One of the most disturbing findings is how often models produce unfaithful reasoning. They give the correct final answer while providing explanations that are logically wrong, incomplete, or fabricated. This is worse than being wrong, because it trains users to trust explanations that don’t correspond to the actual decision process. Embodied reasoning is where things really fall apart. LLMs systematically fail at physical commonsense, spatial reasoning, and basic physics because they have no grounded experience. Even in text-only settings, as soon as a task implicitly depends on real-world dynamics, failures become predictable and repeatable. The authors don’t just criticize. They outline mitigation paths: inference-time scaling, analogical memory, external verification, and evaluations that deliberately inject known failure cases instead of optimizing for leaderboard performance. But they’re very clear that none of these are silver bullets yet. The takeaway isn’t that LLMs can’t reason. It’s more uncomfortable than that. LLMs reason just enough to sound convincing, but not enough to be reliable. And unless we start measuring how models fail not just how often they succeed we’ll keep deploying systems that pass benchmarks, fail silently in production, and explain themselves with total confidence while doing the wrong thing. That’s the real warning shot in this paper. Paper: Large Language Model Reasoning Failures
28
68
296
24,661
Another stupid @Waymo blocking traffic at rush hour @ 16th and Valencia. 🤦🏼‍♀️🤦🏼‍♀️ Must fix this, constant problem on 1-lane streets in SF. #Waymo & other #RobotCars should pull to the side to wait. Passengers can walk a few storefronts to avoid inconveniencing the rest of the city.
58
Daisy P-L retweeted
One of the most underreported stories of 2025 is that Trump is the first President ever to create electricity shortages on purpose. He is illegally canceling solar and wind, causing layoffs and price spikes, and the media is like “wow what a showman that guy is!”
995
7,129
26,399
688,876
Daisy P-L retweeted
Replying to @samstein
Data heist.
26
194
4,482
Daisy P-L retweeted
24 Nov 2025
But Elon Musk got a trillion dollar pay package from Tesla and was dining with Trump and MBS the other day. so, i guess, it was a success on that front.
75
194
2,227
91,297
Daisy P-L retweeted
24 Nov 2025
The legacy of DOGE is not that it failed. It's that it destroyed: 1. faith in real cost conscious governance 2. the careers of committed govt employees 3. scientific research and the biomedical breakthroughs that come with it 4. countless lives of the world's poorest
1,260
6,170
25,674
1,401,260
Daisy P-L retweeted
25 Nov 2025
If you’re keeping track at home, Trump admin has cancelled: - Jobs Report - Inflation Report - GDP Report I’m sure everything is just fine.
709
10,294
47,986
614,652
Daisy P-L retweeted
Trump brazenly using his pardon power to free a supporter who was found guilty of helping China repress and intimidate people on American soil. Blatant corruption at the cost of US national security and values.
2
7
9
1,589
Daisy P-L retweeted
"The provision, tucked into a measure to fund the legislative branch, appears to immediately allow for eight GOP senators to sue over their phone records being seized in the course of the investigation by Jack Smith ... into the riot at the Capitol..." nytimes.com/2025/11/10/us/po…
2
7
11
3,146
Daisy P-L retweeted
I will not support a deal that does nothing to make health care more affordable. We are in a health care emergency. A simple one-year extension of these tax credits would cost less than Donald Trump’s $40 billion bailout for Argentina. A vote for this bill is a mistake.
14,067
4,255
33,307
1,120,314
Daisy P-L retweeted
26 Aug 2024
Effective tax rates before and after the Trump tax law: Verizon Before: 21% After: 8% Walmart Before: 31% After: 17% AT&T Before: 13% After: 3% Walt Disney Before: 26% After: 8% FedEx Before: 18% After: 1% This is what a corporate giveaway looks like.
4,760
27,207
59,178
2,769,366
10 Nov 2025
If you include the normal coders that the Big Tech overlords are trying to replace with AI, that *miiiiight* be true. But once it's just Elon and his fellow tech leaders executing their dream of AI doing all the work, this will be flipped on its head and the proportions way off.
9 Nov 2025
Accurate
1
38
5 Nov 2025
This is what a #BlueWave looks like!
Every single county in Virginia shifted Blue
57
5 Nov 2025
Huge implications - Peter Hubbard & Dr. Alicia Johnson will be 1st Dems on GA PSC in 20 years! Voters responding to poor financial decisions by the All-GOP incumbent Commission which raised rates 6 TIMES THIS YEAR! Investing in nuclear & gas proved a HUGE waste of time & money!
🚨BREAKING🚨 Democrat Peter Hubbard has defeated Incumbent Republican Fitz Johnson in the Georgia Public Service Commissioner 3 Special Election. This is a flip from 🔴 to 🔵.
1
122
Daisy P-L retweeted
Dems in Jersey, Virginia, and Georgia ran hard against Trump and Republican attempts to kill clean energy and their skyrocketing utility bills, and they all just mopped the floor with their GOP opponents.
Decision Desk HQ projects Mikie Sherrill to win the New Jersey Governor election. #DecisionMade: 8:13 pm ET Follow live results on our website.
17
98
12,874
Daisy P-L retweeted
THIS IS TRUMP’S AMERICA! A 16-year-old minor from Houston, Texas, who is a U.S. Citizen was beaten, tackled, and choked by ICE as he was heading for school. They used racial slurs against him and his father. The officers did not identify themselves or show any badge. Why are Americans allowing this to happen? We all need to stand together against these actions! What would you do if this was your child?
4,743
7,647
20,095
1,057,944
Daisy P-L retweeted
26 Oct 2025
My readers are beginning to get their healthcare premium notices What do you think about healthcare costs increasing like this?
41
11
115
20,023
3 Oct 2025
A more informed take on the "Dollar Store Fascism" on display this week in dangerously rounding up our generals and admirals for perceived political gain than most news outlets seemed to muster.
About eleven years ago, I was closing in on my undergraduate degree at Georgetown University using my G.I. Bill benefits (thank you, American taxpayers), and I got into an argument with a fellow veteran during an evening class discussion over women in combat roles. I forget how the subject initially came up, but someone else had offered that women should be permitted to attend Ranger School, the U.S. Army’s premier combat leadership course. This observation pissed off my fellow veteran, and before I knew it, we got into a heated argument right there in the middle of class. When I pointed out that although most women (and most men) couldn’t hack Ranger School, there were surely some women who could pass the grueling standards of the course, he responded with exasperation: “Oh, c’mon!” This was otherwise a calm and collected man. We had thoughtful conversations all throughout the semester, but it was this topic—and this topic alone—that infuriated him to the point of shouting. At the time, I naïvely thought that he genuinely didn’t think women could compete with men in combat courses. In the years since, I can’t help but think it was less about standards and more about the voluntarily emasculated feelings of some men when confronted with the reality that some women have the capacity and skill to do what most men cannot. He never attended Ranger School, and had he done so, statistics were not on his side regarding the prospect of success. So, if a woman graduated from Ranger School and earned her coveted Ranger Tab, what would that say about him? Less than a year after that argument, Captain Kristen Griest and 1st Lieutenant Shaye Haver became the first women to earn their Tabs. They did so while meeting the same exact standards as their male peers. They did so under a grading system that relied, in part, on peer evaluations, meaning that the approval of their male classmates was essential to graduating. Two months later, they were joined by Major Lisa Jaster—a 37-year-old Army Reserve engineer officer and mother of two—the first woman in the Army Reserve to accomplish the feat (an uncommon feat for any Army Reserve soldier). In the ten years since these three women earned their Tabs, more than 150 women have joined this exclusive club, all meeting the same high standards as the men alongside them, all doing so not out of personal glory but fidelity to their oath as soldiers. Many other changes have taken place in that time. In January of 2016, the repeal of the combat exclusion ban for women was fully implemented, opening all military occupational specialties to women for the first time. Six months later, the ban on transgender service members was first lifted; by this time, the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”—the policy effectively banning lesbian, gay, and bisexual service members—had been in effect for more than four years. By 2018, all service branches had implemented new policies permitting Black women to wear certain natural hairstyles, which had been previously and ludicrously banned under the bizarre grooming regulations up to that point. By 2023, all service branches had implemented some degree of new policies permitting shaving waivers for service members with pseudofolliculitis barbae (PFB), a medical condition causing severe razor bumps that disproportionately affects Black men. That same year, all branches had come into compliance permitting the wearing of turbans, hijabs, and beards for religious reasons, allowing Sikh and Muslim service members to serve honorably in uniform within strict grooming standards. In the history of our Armed Forces, only ten women have officially risen to the rank of four-star general or admiral, most of them in the past decade — and half of them in the past four years, including Admiral Lisa Franchetti, who became the first woman to serve as Chief of Naval Operations (the top U.S. Navy officer) in 2023, making her also the first woman to serve on the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The long overdue changes being made to our military were still too fast and too frightening and too insulting for some straight white men in our country, most of whom haven’t served in uniform a day in their lives but had always taken a very curious pride in our military being (in their minds) the last bastion of white male excellence. These mediocre men could stomach seeing other white men accomplish what they could not. That somehow felt fair. But they could not bear seeing women, people of color, LGBTQ people, and some religious minorities not just be accepted in the ranks but excel while being held to the same high standards. Trump’s reelection brought the promise of salving their insecurities. They had no evidence to support the ludicrous assertion that our military has somehow been made weaker by all these changes, nor was that ever the point. What they wanted was a military that didn’t remind them that people who don’t look like them were serving with honor and excellence in ways they could not — or declined to. Something had to be done. Their feelings needed to be salvaged. Merit and standards needed to be replaced by comforting images of only straight white men in power. The past nine months have been a whirlwind of rollbacks in service to their hurt feelings. On the same day, a month after he took office, Trump removed Air Force General C. Q. Brown, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs — and Admiral Franchetti from her role as Chief of Naval Operations. No reason was given for their removal. Both were only 16 months into their posts, which typically last four years. Both were replaced by white male officers. Both were basically forced into early retirement. Admiral Linda Fagan, Commandant of the Coast Guard, had been removed by Trump the day after his inauguration. Vice Admiral Shoshana Chatfield, U.S. Military Representative to NATO, was removed in April. Vice Admiral Yvette Davids, the first woman and Hispanic service member to serve as Superintendent of the U.S. Naval Academy, was removed from that position only 18 months into an expected three-year tenure. In all cases, either no real explanations were given for their removal or the explanations offered were murky and dubious at best. The trans ban was, of course, reinstated by Trump a week after he took office. With zero credible evidence to support his executive order claiming they failed to meet high standards, five thousand honorably serving trans service members were given a deadline to accept early discharge from the ranks or risk their benefits while waiting for the Supreme Court to decide their fate in the near future. Earlier this month, Trump, who campaigned on keeping the United States out of wars, renamed the Department of Defense to the “Department of War” — although not really because that would technically take an Act of Congress, so his executive order refers to the name as a “secondary designation” (I’m not kidding). Then came today’s latest clown move in Dollar Store Fascism. Pete Hegseth, television personality and Trump’s Defense Secretary, ordered most of the upper half of all available generals and admirals in the Armed Forces to report to a “closed-door gathering” on Marine Corps Base Quantico in Virginia with no advance information on the reason. It’s unconfirmed how many generals and admirals (along with their senior enlisted advisors) were in attendance, but some reports have said as many as 400, many of them traveling quite some distance from their official command and staff duties. There are close to a thousand generals and admirals in the U.S. military from one-star and up. Those in attendance were primarily the more senior officers. It was an unprecedented order because it would typically be seen by top government officials as unnecessary and deeply reckless. A great way to put our national security at risk is announcing to the world—and all hostile nations—that you’re gathering the bulk of our senior military leadership in the same space at the same time on a specific date. It was an attempt at a pure mafia move. An insecure show of power by an insecure administration that is privately loathed by many of the generals and admirals who were in attendance. It was a cheap imitation of Tony Soprano if the fictional New Jersey mob boss had been a complete idiot. Hegseth, who unintentionally gave the appearance of someone who had just taken a bump of cocaine backstage (I’m sure he did no such thing), told the assembled generals and admirals that big changes were coming. He leaned into the typical “war-fighting” and “warrior ethos” themes that sound like corporate pablum coming out of his mouth. He referenced the Roman Empire within the first minute of his remarks, which was more than likely a red meat bit for Trump’s white nationalist supporters, who revere Rome as the foundation of western values and steadfastly ignore that it was the Romans who executed Christ for treason. He literally fat-shamed the generals and admirals in attendance, announced there would be imminent, new grooming standards regarding beards (an implicit reference to Black men and some religious minorities in the ranks), and talked of new physical fitness standards that would remove gender from the equation, which any adult with common sense could read as an effort to cull women from the ranks. I have long believed that women and men in uniform should, in fact, be held to the same physical fitness standards but with a reasonable framework that takes into account the whole of physical fitness excellence, including flexibility, dexterity, and benchmarks that align to the greater whole. A military IT specialist or military lawyer or whomever should be physically fit, but I care less about their ability to break records on an obstacle course than I do their effectiveness in cyber security and international law. That’s not what Hegseth wants. He desires to see women barred from combat and ultimately kicked out of the ranks entirely. I know this because he has literally expressed this view in the past. His framework for universal physical standards isn’t about lethality; it’s about creating a vehicle for flushing women out of the military. In probably the most cringey portion of his remarks, Hegseth opined: "And since waging war is so costly in blood and treasure, we owe our republic a military that will win any war we choose or any war that is thrust upon us. Should our enemies choose foolishly to challenge us, they will be crushed by the violence, precision and ferocity of the War Department. In other words, to our enemies, FAFO. "If necessary, our troops can translate that for you." FAFO means “fuck around, find out,” which is what you might expect from an angry teenager imagining what they would say while addressing top military brass, not the reasonable, adult leader of the Defense Department. That last bit—“our troops can translate that for you”—was a spot of embarrassing pandering to Trump’s base about elitism because Hegseth is just one of the boys, you know? Just a good ole boy from the working class ranks. Not a Princeton-educated ROTC grad from a middle class family. For their part, the generals and admirals sat stoney-faced and silent. Hegseth had clearly been hoping for applause with the cringey “FAFO” line but was greeted with perplexed silence by the gathered brass. In fact, the reaction of the military’s top leadership was closer to that of a morgue after business hours. While some of that can explained by the discipline and conditioning of military officers who have long understood to keep still during political speeches, it was still far too quiet and staid given the surroundings. These generals and admirals understood they could have applauded his remarks without fear of retribution, and they clearly chose, en masse, not to do so. They knew it was not really a briefing. It was an attempt at a political rally. They knew the intended audience were not them, the generals and admirals who had served with honor for decades sitting before Hegseth. The intended audience were Trump’s mediocre supporters who are furious at the elites and blame everyone who doesn’t look like them for their own mediocrity. Trump’s approval numbers are way down. The economy is anemic. Epstein hangs like a dark cloud over the administration. Hegseth has been consistently criticized for his irresponsible actions all year and privately bashed for his incompetence by top officials and aides at the Pentagon in leaks to reporters. This performance was done in the hopes of reminding most of Trump’s supporters why they voted for him in the first place: to remove everything and anything that makes them uncomfortable and reminds them of their personal failures. It was done to rekindle and enable their resentment at a system that has always catered to them but somehow still couldn’t adequately compensate for their shortcomings and magically wand them into success. It was an intended realization of the wet dream of a particular kind of middle-aged straight, white guy in our country who has read way too much Tom Clancy but never actually served and has always wanted a Daddy to come along and tell them their lack of success is not their fault and the success of women and people of color and queer folks in the military is unearned. That was the whole point of the event. It had nothing to do with improving our national security and military readiness. It was a role-play session for undeserving straight, white guys who could never hack it and resent those who could. It was a celebration of the smallest men in the world, and by that measure, it was wildly successful. And the rest of us will be picking up the pieces for a long time to come. ---- Full essay available here for easier sharing: charlotteclymer.substack.com…
35