Actually, Apple did deliver that capability but developers pushed-back and didn't want it.

Jobs was indeed a dick, but he did not make advertisements claiming features that do not exist.

Most people who understand how cryonics are done and still oppose it do so for one of two reasons. They think technology CANNOT improve to a point it can restore a body, or sour grapes. Or some combination thereof. The first objection comes from a strange confidence that today's limitations are permanent. The second camp are people who recoil from the idea not because it is unworkable, but because they find it emotionally distasteful: the prospect of others escaping death strikes them as unfair or hubristic. Medical intervention is all well and good to these people, but only to the point it can be done immediately and doesn't depend on technologies that haven't yet been developed.

Many hold a hybrid position: publicly insisting that cryopreservation is quackery, while privately wrestling with a discomforting suspicion that it might succeed, and that rejecting it is more comfortable than confronting what that would imply. It is an oddly revealing topic. When one examines the arguments in detail, opposition to cryonics rarely hinges on the engineering challenges themselves. Rather, it hinges on one's temperament: whether one sees the future as a realm of continual possibility, or as a wall at which a human must politely stop and expire. Cryonics forces a person to declare which of those visions he actually holds.

Properly done, the preservation happens immediately after the heart stops -- meaning ischemia is minimized and revival possible from that standpoint -- and includes chemicals that prevent ice crystal formation.

In fairness...

1.) Cisco is far less litigation happy than Oracle is. Not saying they don't have attorneys on retainer, but Oracle is frequently referred to as a law firm with a software sales division - very different tiers.

2.) Cisco owned Linksys for a while, sure, but they haven't owned it in nearly 15 years - Cisco sold it over to Belkin back in 2013, who in turn sold it to Foxconn around 2018.

3.) Cisco may have discontinued selling routers running Linux out of the box, but they never did any signed-bootloader shenanigans that prevented DD-WRT/Tomato/OpenWRT from running on routers for quite some time - I remember running Shibby's TomatoUSB on an AC3200 for quite some time. Ironically, I think Belkin later started making it nearly-impossible to run third party firmware on Linksys hardware (except the $400 ones).

4.) It's not like anyone else took up the mantle...a handful of routers can run OpenWRT, but they're from obscure vendors - it's not like Cisco got rid of OSS-running routers, only to have Belkin or Netgear or D-Link take it up...Asus did for a little bit (the N56U being a better example), but they didn't keep up with it.

So yeah, Cisco has its clear faults...but how they handled the consumer router division, in my opinion, isn't the best example of this problem...and certainly not when being compared to Oracle.

When in the history of humanity has there not been a big problem coming? Or occurring, for that matter.

Steve Jobs would not release a product until it actually did what they claimed it would do. I don't understand why this is some strangely difficult lesson for CEOs to understand. I suppose with the success of Musk and his ilk that idea seems quaint.

The problem in this story is not the wealth, but its form. Cryptocurrency transactions are generally irreversible and not subject to the layers of process and protection that have been built up around large banking transactions. Keep your money in banks and brokerages like a sensible person and you don't have much risk.

Bursting of the AI bubble can't come soon enough. Far too much tech bro nonsense, DRAM / GPU prices way too damn high while unhealthy levels of collateral damage accumulate.

There is too much value in the ability of corporations to custom train models on internal datasets for the whole world revolves around our centralized AI service thing these AI corporations are dreaming about to have ever worked.

To make matters worse generative AI space is stagnating. Going forward cost of local inference is declining at the same time distance in capabilities between centralized corporate models and publicly available weights shrink. Regulatory power plays have stagnated as the public tires of AI scare mongering and so they are out of options.

What is going on currently with the colossus stargates is a destructive desperate hail mary to brute force their way out of the massive hole the industry keeps digging for itself.

Microsoft desperately wants to sell us a vision of the PC being an "agentic" device. You speak, it responds. Except, they're creating the equivalent of a blind and deaf person being peddled as an expert in all things. It can't read the files on the computer? It can't respond with answers clearly spelled out in the content currently pulled up on the screen? And apparently it can't understand simple questions well enough to even fully grok the scope or domain of the query itself.

Maybe one of the AI pushing tech companies could try to work through the shit-show of pre-alpha state software in their own labs before attempting to foist it off on developers or "insiders" or, more often, the end users? Maybe, just maybe, we'd have a better perspective on AI if we didn't have so much of it shoved in our faces while it's half baked and nowhere near ready to fulfill even the most basic tasks it's being sold as the perfect solution for? But it seems more and more likely that we'll just let the entirety of humanity drown in the refuse pile that half baked AI is creating. Nobody seems at all interested in saying, "How about we get it functional before we shove it out the door?"

Uh, yes, the 24-hour cancellation option is always the most expensive one for a given room (ignoring paying extra for add-ons like free breakfast or extra points). What other option would be more expensive? The one that gives the consumer the most flexibility is the one with the highest risk to the property, and that's priced in.

Yeah, TFA overstated it. Though if you're not booking through the chain directly, in many cases it is hard to get a 24-hour cancellation policy. Many of the travel aggregator services hide them.

Yep. That's all true even if AI is the most transformative technology ever invented, even if it generates trillions per year in economic output -- it might not do it soon enough to prevent another crash. You don't have to believe that AI is "sand-castle based or vapor based" (which it's really not) to see a big problem coming.

How does Microsoft get by with Windows 11 in Europe? The entire OS is infested with data aggregation by default, and even if you try to escape the defaults, it will continually nag you to allow them to gather your data and sells it as a "security feature." I'd think some regulators would be getting mighty pissy about that nonsense if they understood what it was actually doing.

The market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent.

The better strategy, IMO, is to keep your money safe and wait for the bubble to burst, then pile in for the recovery. Where to keep money safe is a good question, though. Just holding cash might be risky if inflation comes back, and the current administration seems anxious to pump up inflation.

There's a pair of seriously bad assumptions underlying your analysis:

(1) What AI does right now is all it's going to do. Given the way capabilites have grown recently, this is a ludicrous assumption. Keep in mind that ChatGPT was launched November 30, 2022... it's less than three years old! And the reasoning models are barely a year old. There is no reason whatsoever to assume that this technology has peaked.

(2) We already know how to take full advantage of AI. Every time a new technology comes along it takes decades for us to fully understand how to effectively use it, and to deploy it everywhere it is useful. I'd say we still haven't fully incorporated the Internet into our society, and we've been working on that for over 30 years now. We're barely beginning to understand how to use what AI we've already got, and it'll take years, if not decades, for the full economic benefits to be achieved -- and in the meantime AI is probably going to continue improving.

The AI thing absolutely is a bubble, but it's not "sand-castle based or vapor based". It's very real. The problem is that the massive wave of investment is going to have to start generating returns within the next 3-4 years or else the financial deals that underpin it all will collapse. That doesn't mean the technology will disappear, it just means that the current investors will lose their shirts, other people will scoop up their assets at firesale prices, and those people will figure out how to deploy it effectively, and create trillions in economic value.

Well, assuming AI doesn't just kill us all.

How long before they remove the option to disable it?

Microsoft logic: Not enough people are using this feature we want used. Remove the ability to disable it.