Getting the word out about the wonders of AI appears to have some impact on AI PC appeal. Just 32 percent of respondents unfamiliar with AI PCs said they’d consider purchasing one for their next upgrade, whereas among those who have already used an AI PC, that figure rises to 64 percent.

In other words, of the self selecting group excited enough about the technology to try one of these, 46% wouldn’t buy another. I can’t help but wonder when these companies will realize that there is no market for clippy 2.0.

I could definitely see how cotton could be used in some pretty heinous ways, maybe not by definition slurrs, but still. Given the historical context of the United States In particular.

Ugh, this is all so pathetic.

Bending over backwards to accommodate the loudest idiots in the room because they complain when they face consequences for their actions.

I had an idea recently of describing these chatbots as holograms.

Complex ideas and concepts are being flattened. Depth, a dimension if you will, in the form of context and conception, is being removed.

Like how a 3D object gets flattened on to a 2D plane, a hologram.

I think the easiest solution to this is just not to have all the ”smart” features in the first place.

In regards to reducing emissions, I get that these smart features can increase efficiency, but, does that offset the emissions of manufacturing the additional hardware needed? most people won’t set up things like load shifting, or live in areas where variable priced power just isn’t a thing, so that efficiency is only really realized by a fraction of the units.

Things like heat pump heaters are incredibly efficient systems, even without the smart features. I think we would be better served by focusing on getting these made as efficiently, repairably, and cheaply as possible. And then getting them in to as many hands as possible. Packing them full of smart features will just diminish the longevity of the equipment, increase the cost per unit, and make them less accessible to the average person.

The problem is, this isn’t really up to consumers or even companies, as alluded to in blog post. Investors push for the inclusion of such features because they’re ether convinced it’s what must be done to compete, opens avenues for future subscription fees, or just because they’re invested in the company that makes the parts that enable the features.

It’s a structural issue in how investment and funding is done, and regulation will only do so much to counter the natural tendencies of the business world. We need different ways to get investment in to the production of these kinds of products.

“The Death of Stalin” is perhaps similar to what you’re thinking of, basically about the shenanigans with in the Kremlin fallowing Stalin’s death.

I mean, I guess the term might just be “historical comedy”

I see a lot of potential for electric aircraft for short haul flights between regional airports, or for distribution of cargo between hubs, but not in any sort of dispersed capacity. Hub to warehouse cargo? Sure! Delivery to doorsteps or air taxi? hell no.

Anything that isn’t flying along a designate air route between already establish large volume facilities is just fundamentally impractical due to the safety issues with aircraft. No amount of new tech will solve how fundamentally dangerous a 4 ton hunk of metal going at 160MPH going anywhere but a designated route away from populated areas is.

Flying cars exist, you just need a pilot license to operate one, that is not something that will go away any time soon, and for good reason.

Everyone driving at 60MPH in 2D is dangerous enough as it is, 160MPH in 3D is way more dangerous. It’s not an issue of technology, it is an issue of the fundamental impracticality of the concept.

So, AMD has started slapping the AI branding on to some of their products, but they haven’t leaned in to it quite as hard as Nvidia has. They’re still focusing on their core product line up and developing the actual advancements in chip design.

He was sued for miss use of company profits, not for failing to maximize profits.

He took profits and was reinvesting in new plants and cutting car prices, while also ending dividend payments to do so. That was the crux of the case, ending dividend payments despite having money to continue paying them. This case is routinely held up as an example of shareholder primacy but has been dismissed as an example of such by most modern thinkers In the field, in large part because the court also ruled that he had final say on how to proceed with company operation. Increasing worker pay was not the issue, ending dividends to make capital investment was.

Edit: also, I should clarify, he was the majority share holder, and the minority shareholders could thus not replace him with someone willing to pay dividends. He was not being sued for failing to seek profits, he was being sued for holding those profits hostage from other shareholders.

This is a common misconception based on an argument put forward my Milton Friedman. It’s based on legal cases where CEOs were taken to court for knowingly defrauding shareholders for their own personal gain (say, selling all of a companies assets of the company to a different company the ceo owns privately for a single dollar).

Friedman argued that these cases set precedent that meant all CEO were legally obligated to maximize shareholder value and could be held legally accountable for not doing so. Friedman was wrong about this, like many other things he said, as he was not a lawyer, nor a particularly good economist. No CEO has even been successfully sued for “failing to maximize shareholder value” despite some people taking Friedman’s work to heart and trying to do so.

This is definitely realistic and not an over valuation based on AI-hype investor brain rot. Like, they’re a fucking graphics card company. Like, sure graphics cards can do some cool linear algebra, and linear algebra can do some cool things… but I’m sorry, they’re not going to be earning as much as Apple or Microsoft, companies that sell the whole rest of the computer to people and/or the plurality of software that runs on it.

Reminder than most other browsers are based on chromium, and Google can probably break ad blockers on them if they want to.

It’s also a chromium based browser so good chance it will loose any ad blocking ability if google decides to play hardball.

See, it isn’t new and it isn’t AI, but it’s the same line of development as modern LLMs. They’ve just rebranded existing projects and lines of development as “AI technology” to be marketable.

Might be that information about when you do and don’t use the output is helpful for training. Like, if you use the output, good sign the output is good.

Now I’m wondering if the point of the ads is not to make revenue, but to get people used to paying a subscription fee for their OS by way of a “removing ads” fee, maybe they start bundling other things into the subscription version like game pass or office to sweeten the deal, then slowly transition to a purely subscription model.

some are talking about this like it’s going to be the straw that breaks the camels back and suddenly everyone will flock to a Linux distro, but, realistically, most market share is based on what companies use for work stations, and companies ain’t gonna change unless it starts to seriously impact productivity or it cost them more.

For personal/freelance-work computers, some people will just suck it up because of inertia. Of those who just can’t stand it… most will probably buy a mac next time they get a computer. There will probably be an increase in Linux usership, but it’s probably gonna be a 5-1% change in market share, depending on how fucked 11 ends up being as time goes on.

Probably the biggest increase in market share will be from schools adopting chrome books or the like.

The website formally known as twitter runs face first in to the results of chasing another tech hype train built on sound technology being applied way too broadly, and operating in unsustainable and dubiously legal ways.

The most space efficient parking space is one outside the urban center at a bus stop or train station. Having parking inside urban areas just creates more traffic by making it possible for more personal cars to enter the city. The issue of parking and traffic in cities can only be solved by a paradigm shift away from trying to accommodate cars in dense urban environments.