and the product hasn't even become attractive and popular yet. OpenAI forgot that step...

.... and that would seem to indicate that IPv6 is currently handling around half of Internet traffic.

Question is, is it actually making it out on the Internet or just being used to tunnel IPv4 through it?

It's a serious question because LTE and 5G networks only handle IPv6 data - all data packets are IPv6. IPv4 traffic must be tunnelled through the mobile IPv6 network. (This is because obviously there are too many mobile devices). It's why CGNAT exists - to provide the IPv4 gateway to the Internet from the IPv6 only LTE and 5G networks

So yes, technically IPv6 is used for your cellphone data traffic, but it's just carrying IPv4 inside of it.

Or think of it this way, OpenAI had revenues of around $10B. But you already saw spending commitments of $100B+. And countless billions have been sunk into OpenAI by people who are expecting to 10x their investment

Even the most generous estimates don't have OpenAI making more than $50B in revenue by 2030, and they'll have to make more huge investments so it's still in the negative.

At the same time, those datacenter processors are extremely perishable in that in a few years what you have now is worthless.

It's a bubble that's going to pop. We'll still have AI - the dot-com bubble popped but we still have the Internet, and many companies survived it, notably ones like Amazon, eBay, and Google. ChatGPT will likely be around, but most of the others which aren't so popular will likely disappear unless they can find a source of revenue.

If AI-generated music can't be copyrighted, who gets to collect royalties?

No one. Except maybe a minor amount to the person who wrote the prompt (the only copyrightable part of the process). That's why streaming services are so keen to promote it heavily as it means they don't have to pay anything for the song.

That's probably the real reason why the song is being re-recorded. The AI generated version would technically not be under copyright, which means this very popular song could be used freely as it was in public domain and they would get no money out of it.

It's all about money in the end.

How much money would Apple save if it just fired their legal teams and instead modified their policies to abide by the law?

They are abiding by the law right now. The EU is examining if Apple Ads and Apple Maps are "big enough" to qualify under the law where previously they didn't.

Of course, I'm not exactly sure what it means - Apple Ads really applies only to Apple's services (App Store, Music, TV, etc). Are they expecting Apple to open those apps to supporting other ad networks? That would be like forcing a website to use other ad providers just because?

Ditto with Maps. Not quite sure what you get when they're "opened up"? Closest I can think of is maybe the embedded maps must be switchable, but then you'd think that would force Google to have to let their maps use some other maps as well (given Google Maps is a lot larger)?

I'm just confused as to what is being "opened up" in the end. Especially since you can use any navigation app on iOS, no EU needed. I mean I can choose from Google Maps, Waze or Apple Maps easily enough, and they all provide turn by turn navigation and Siri controls them all already, so I'm not exactly sure what Apple is "gatekeeping". Or does the EU expect to force Apple to produce an Android version?

What does an "opened up" maps app do?

I didn't do anything crazy like actually read the article, but I did go as far as to read the third sentence of the summary, which began like this:

.... and that would seem to indicate that IPv6 is currently handling around half of Internet traffic.

They act even stranger when Wonder Woman is around.

You build your 3+ generation system when prices are stable, not when the madness is in full swing. This price swing will pass as others have. When that happens it's time to build your affordable systems to weather the next false flag.

They all are, including the new ones with flaws yet to be taken advantage of.

Ah yes, the downsizing of company IT departments and then outsourcing that to companies with "good support". That's been going well.

Investment is a tricky one.

I'd say that learning how to learn is probably the single-most valuable part of any degree, and anything that has any business calling itself a degree will make this a key aspect. And that, alone, makes a degree a good investment, as most people simply don't know how. They don't know where to look, how to look, how to tell what's useful, how to connect disparate research into something that could be used in a specific application, etc.

The actual specifics tend to be less important, as degree courses are well-behind the cutting edge and are necessarily grossly simplified because it's still really only crude foundational knowledge at this point. Students at undergraduate level simply don't know enough to know the truly interesting stuff.

And this is where it gets tricky. Because an undergraduate 4-year degree is aimed at producing thinkers. Those who want to do just the truly depressingly stupid stuff can get away with the 2 year courses. You do 4 years if you are actually serious about understanding. And, in all honesty, very few companies want entry-level who are competent at the craft, they want people who are fast and mindless. Nobody puts in four years of network theory or (Valhalla forbid) statistics for the purpose of being mindless. Not unless the stats destroyed their brain - which, to be honest, does happen.

Humanities does not make things easier. There would be a LOT of benefit in technical documentation to be written by folk who had some sort of command of the language they were using. Half the time, I'd accept stuff written by people who are merely passing acquaintances of the language. Vague awareness of there being a language would sometimes be an improvement. But that requires that people take a 2x4 to the usual cultural bias that you cannot be good at STEM and arts at the same time. (It's a particularly odd cultural bias, too, given how much Leonardo is held in high esteem and how neoclassical universities are either top or near-top in every country.)

So, yes, I'll agree a lot of degrees are useless for gaining employment and a lot of degrees for actually doing the work, but the overlap between these two is vague at times.

That's good advice for individuals building a home system for personal use. It's not really applicable for businesses and companies, though, since they likely don't have the expertise or the man-hours required to cobble together their business-critical systems from used parts. They're going to want to buy new, from a company that give them good support if/when anything goes wrong.

It'll get used, if using it is more profitable than letting it go dark. Given the infrastructure costs of keeping all that hardware running, it's not a given that it will be. Once the investor $$$ stop flowing and the debt limits are hit, we'll see how much of the AI hardware build-out can really pay for its own room and board, and how much was just 'peacock feathers' whose only real purpose was to impress gullible investors into handing over their money.

The degree isn't about "getting a high-paid job", it's about knowing what the hell you're doing once you get a job. Although, fair enough, it's quite plausible that not many degrees would meet that standard either.

There is a possibility of a short-circuit causing an engine shutdown. Apparently, there is a known fault whereby a short can result in the FADEC "fail-safing" to engine shutdown, and this is one of the competing theories as the wiring apparently runs near a number of points in the aircraft with water (which is a really odd design choice).

Now, I'm not going to sit here and tell you that (a) the wiring actually runs there (the wiring block diagrams are easy to find, but block diagrams don't show actual wiring paths), (b) that there is anything to indicate that water could reach such wiring in a way that could cause a short, or (c) that it actually did so. I don't have that kind of information.

All I can tell you, at this point, is that aviation experts are saying that a short at such a location would cause an engine shutdown and that Boeing was aware of this risk.

I will leave it to the experts to debate why they're using electrical signalling (it's slower than fibre, heavier than fibre, can corrode, and can short) and whether the FADEC fail-safes are all that safe or just plain stupid. For a start, they get paid to shout at each other, and they actually know what specifics to shout at each other about.

But, if the claims are remotely accurate, then there were a number of well-known flaws in the design and I'm sure Boeing will just love to answer questions on why these weren't addressed. The problem being, of course, is that none of us know which of said claims are indeed remotely accurate, and that makes it easy for air crash investigators to go easy on manufacturers.