Didn’t better pedestrian maps come as a result of the size of the market, really? Suddenly everyone in the world had a smart GPS device in their pocket and adding some more routes onto existing maps would have made sense for any map maker, regardless if it was Google or some other hypothetical company.
If you have this kind of money to throw around the risk is probably fairly described as “negligible”. What, is the housing market going to crash and not recover in the 35 years until you kick the bucket, in this hypothetical?
I agree I should learn to do it from scratch. And I’ve been given an added motivation to do so by seeing how useful just a few lines of code can be.
And you’re not wrong. I’ve learned the benefit of versioning when working with LLMs because if you’re not careful asking it to do one change can easily break something else. It’s far from a panacea
I know jack squat about programming. I could at one point do “hello world” in Python, if I recall correctly. Thanks to ChatGPT I now have scripts to make my life easier in a bunch of ways and a growing high-level understanding of how they work. I can’t program, an I won’t claim to. But I can be useful. Thanks to LLMs. (And before the catastrophists arrive: I know enough to be wary of the risks of running scripts I don’t understand, which is why I make a point of understanding how they function before I proceed)
Right. So the story of how Intel lost the world’s single biggest customer goes as far back as that and raises the question of why the world’s leading, at the time, chip maker couldn’t or wouldn’t make mobile chips.
Also, when Apple switched to ARM for their desktops the core motivation may have been to bring everything in house. But they gained a momentous advantage in the market because the chips they made were so much better than Intel’s. Again, explaining what happened to Intel to make them lag the cutting edge should imo be the key question, not why Apple made a rational business decision (albeit possibly an unethical one. Shareholder capitalism has entered the conversation.).
You say Intel’s semiconductor fabbing was leading when Apple started to do their mobile processors on ARM. In wafer tech that is probably true, I don’t know. But clearly Intel wasn’t making power efficient mobile chips. Either because they didn’t have the design capability or didn’t consider the segment worth it. There’s an interesting article in that alone.
My only point is that the story of Intel’s disorganized retreat is at least as relevant as Apple’s march forward
Apple was an Intel customer. Talking about Apple’s role in the semiconductor sector MUST include Intel because one must explain how and why Apple decided to develop their own (first mobile, then computer) chips in the first place instead of sticking with Intel. Why is Intel not competitive? THAT question seems much more pertinent to America’s chip travails
It is amazing. And essential. And has gigantic external costs that either nobody is paying right now or that the government is picking up the bill for. I.e. the true cost is not being priced in
You’re just being taken advantage of. At every step and every service level they are fleecing you, because they can. Think the non-warranty option saves you money? It may on the margin but your easily parted money subsidizes those that do get the warranty. And they still get screwed for the profit. You can’t win in a rigged system
Except listed companies are sociopathic. They have no empathy. And their only goal is shareholder value. There’s no appealing to their conscience, so carrots and sticks it is
So? You’re stuck with a warrantied product that you know has the same defect, unless they’ve changed things since last I saw it. What’s a two-year warranty on a product that breaks after three? The market is not fixing this particular issue. Sure you can choose another manufacturer next time but you’ve already been screwed by one. There was no need for that in the first place.
How many half eaten cakes would you have to return to monetarily make up for, say, a PC or washing machine that stops working after 4 ½ years? Because you can get that device replaced or repaired in much of Europe, for free. I'm not aware of any US company that offers such a warranty window and actually keeps its word (look at crappy fridges where the company will replace one faulty unit for another with the same problem once, and then you're on your own). And even if some did, they are by far the minority. The voluntary "I'm a good brand, choose me" freebies offered by a company will almost never outmatch that mandated by regulation.
The reason is simple: the companies have a fiduciary responsibility to make as much money for shareholders as possible, and if it's marginally cheaper to shorten the warranty period (whithouth seeming out of touch with the rest of the market), the bulk will choose that. Whereas the aim of regulation is always to secure the interest of the consumer. I say "always", but there are exceptions in cases of regulatory capture, which admittedly is much of the US...
The government can not "screw the business and the end user" because tax rates are public. VAT changes don't just happen in secret. Tax changes to specific product categories (such as extra taxes for alcohol in some countries) are publically debated. And if you want lower taxes you try to vote in a more economically right-wing government. The framing of your statement makes it clear you just don't trust/like governments. That's fine, I guess, but it's an incredibly strong bias in your arguments
I don’t understand how this is a surprise to so many people. The thing can’t reason. If you point out an error, even if it’s real, the GPT doesn’t suddenly “see” the error. It constructs a reply of the likeliest series of words in a conversation where someone told it “you did X wrong”. Its training material probably contains more forum posts admitting a screw-up than a “nuh-huh” response. And on top of that it is trained to be subservient.
Because it doesn’t _understand_ the mistake in the way a human would, it can’t react reliably appropriately
So what? My point is that the two processes were interlinked and fed off each other. The industrial revolution was helped by empire. But the fact that it took place in the UK helped it expand and deepen that very empire faster than the competition. The Maxim Gun, at the bleeding edge of technology in 1884, was made in London and helped Britain subjugate African countries and nudge out other imperial powers.
> rich people either a. spend a lower percentage of their income (in which case, what's the point in having money)
The point in having money is indeed NOT to spend it. It is to build a hoard so large you can live comfortably off the dividends and investment returns, or even to save most of that again and grow your hoard even faster, creating "fuck you" levels of money and intergenerational wealth.
When people say "tax the rich" they don't mean "deprive the neurosurgeon or City banker off his biannual new Mercedes". (These people DO indeed spend a smaller share of their income than poorer folks but that's not the point) When people say "tax the rich" they mean "tax capital returns" so that the country can benefit from the wealth currently amassed and extracted by the hyper wealthy that couldn't spend all their annual portfolio gains if they bought ought all of Paris Fashion Week every year.
Britain has the world’s biggest empire… in part it did so because it industrialized first, but also it was able to industrialize first because of the empire. The two are deeply interlinked
This has heightened my concerns, not allayed them. They have said perpetual licenses will always be an option but 1) I don’t trust corporate promises and 2) they could easily just price that out of reach to push people onto a subscription model. A six-month trial is a not a “try us” timeline, it is “make us indispensable” timeline. That’s a big up front loss of revenue for them which I only see them making back if they go for a higher-pressure pricing model.
I’d venture that Mormons (and SDAs, with which I’m more familiar) have more close knit (Caucasian) communities for generations that support each other and have elevated their collective socioeconomic status. So perhaps they’re less likely to be bottom-level corporate drones, code moneys or Amazon warehouse workers.
For me it’s not that clear cut. Caffeine is a motivating booster each day but if I stick to my rhythm, one in the morning and one at lunch, then it doesn’t affect my sleep at all. It’s only when I’m pressured to go beyond that I suffer
What reputational damage? I follow tech news very closely and it’s the first I’ve heard of it. A listed corporation’s first instinct (unless it has a conscientious board) is always to try their luck and see what they get away with. You don’t make profits by doing anything other than the absolute legal minimum, and that’s only if someone enforces those rules. Listed companies have proven they cannot be trusted to self regulate, never ever
We really have no idea what the training data is, or how the black box of training integrated that data. Perhaps a subreddit or other forum with hiring managers encouraging each others’ biases ended up weighing heavily. The problem is we don’t know. But whatever the input, the output is less useful, that much is clear
I’m not the person you answered but SSD: boot disk, cache, video files you’re working off of. HDD: data you don’t mind waiting for such as video and audio storage, backups, or just cases where you have a lot of data and the SSD isn’t yet cost effective enough
> The more productive workers are, the more free time they’ll have to do whatever it is they want to do to make themselves happy.
Just patently untrue. The more productive you are the more work your boss will send your way, while walking away with fatter margins. If he can. Which is where EU regulation comes in.
Europe’s rules govern the balance between capital owners and labor. It’s far from perfect but it has resulted in fairly stable and happy societies. (At least apart from certain external factors)
Now there is of course nothing wrong with productivity. It is, as you say, very good in many ways. But you cannot look only at a society’s productivity metrics to judge success-and my by success I mean happiness, because that is my goal. Look at happiness in the US vs Europe for example. I know where I’d rather live.
Productivity is not a goal in itself. It is a means to a healthy and happy populace. Europe doesn’t have record breaking GDP but features many of the happiest people in the world. Different values result in different measures of success, I guess
To each their own I guess. Every human-centric development in tech over the past decade which puts people before the interests of corporations seems to have been pushed by the EU. I applaud it all. And it’s making the whole world a more private, less exploited place