> I can't help but feel that my "wisdom of age" might just be testosterone getting out of the way.

I was thinking the same recently, analyzing my life choices then and now. We can't do a double-blinds study with these things, but I believe you might be right.

I feel you but this kind of discourse only polarizes the already divided society. Mothers face a lot of difficulties, and fathers also do. Arguing whose fate is worse seems really unproductive, what makes sense is looking forward and working towards diminishing the effects of these disadvantages.

What you wrote above is just unfair.

Maybe, I'm not sure.

Realistically, you meet with one, two, three potential candidates and you realize it's not what you need and want. You could have them, it's just the disadvantages are too high.

> On the other hand most societies are more tolerant of male promiscuity.

Quotation needed.

> Sounds way less stressful than a high stakes job.

If it's by choice, then yes. Otherwise, it could be really bad.

When you get enormous power and almost zero accountability, it changes you in various ways. I have zero trust Vance is immune to that.

Interesting that is has ESP32 in there - looks like it's becoming the default choice whether or not wireless is involved.

There is an enormous amount of money invested in trying to prove the opposite, for this reason not only they will never admit it, they will actively negate AI was used. It happened before:

https://www.theregister.com/software/2026/02/24/aws-would-ra...

> This will break the rigid instruction-tuning structure

Well, this is something one might naively hope for, unfortunately it only works to a certain extent.

Can you elaborate? Where does the structure come from in this case? The model can't even see the boundaries of the reply (it's started with a prefill and stopped with a custom stopping string).

I believe the original statement is an oversimplification. What actually happens is that extreme situations, both positive and negative, can help you discover things about you that you didn't know before.

Apart from that, the problem with "who you really are" is that individual is more of a process than a static thing, so any such reification becomes invalid in the next instant.

You're right that people aren't static, but we should also acknowledge there are lots of people who become rich and powerful and they don't do horrid things. Many are perfectly decent people who care for their families, help those around them, contribute to their communities and use their wealth and power to support causes that are important to them.

You don't hear about these people as much because they're not out looking for attention, making outlandish statements or even trying to "change the world" in a narcisstic Silicon Valley way.

"Who you are" at your core drives the direction you go in when you acquire wealth and power.