You had to go anonymous to post this? Pathetique...

Check the 3 year PMI at Trading Economics. Not obvious that manufacturing activity in the US has done anything but increase over the last 12+ months.

You have different statistics? Of course, we know what statistics are, don't we? Even that site has conflicting data, because there is no single measure that tells us much. Bitterness is not an acceptable economic policy.

That's so 80s. Browsers got a lot more functionality in the 90s. You were there, right?

The complaint is, at its right, AI replacing people. That's not a new fear. And I expect it to play out much like past technological changes. Not without pain. SMH not without advantages.

I don't think it's possible to make a less nuanced and less coherent argument than this. At best, you're telling on yourself.

There was absolutely no such suggestion of even thought.

Do you people even hear yourselves sometimes? How do you say shit like this with a straight face?

Outside of the US, nobody is going to get a licence to sell a generic herbicide without showing that it's safe to use. This study was an important part of that regulatory process.

The presumption is that the product needs to be shown to be safe to use to get a licence, while getting a licence revoked requires showing that the product is harmful. It's not at all symmetrical.

There's absolutely no reason for google to require you to have a google account and register your phone with them just so you can install packages from the playstore.

Republicans equate being pro-market with being pro-big-business-agenda. The assumption is that anything that is good for big business is good for the market and therefore good for consumers.

So in the Republican framing, anti-trust, since is interferes with what big business wants to do, is *necessarily* anti-market and bad for consumers, which if you accept their axioms would have to be true, even though what big business wants to do is use its economic scale and political clout to consolidate, evade competition, and lock in consumers.

That isn't economics. It's religion. And when religious dogmas are challenge, you call the people challenging them the devil -- or in current political lingo, "terrorists". A "terrorist" in that sense doesn't have to commit any actual act of terrorism. He just has to be a heathen.

Here's the trick...

RISC-V is ostensibly an open source ISA. So as designers build new implementations, they may be advancing the capabilities of the ISA and contributing to the RISC-V universe.

But history teaches us that despise licensing and such, open source advances often get locked behind commercial license forks, and it is a fight to get these outfits to obey the true license. ARM suffered from this occasionally, but not like I expect RISC-V to. This chip ISA has the potential to upend the whole business.

Unless the big stuff gets locked away.

Combine Qualcomm's IP and expertise with the RISC-V platform, a nearly blank slate, and we could see cool stuff. Giving back to the RISC-V community? Not Qualcomm's strength from experience.

But RISC-V could win, if the innovators aren't locked out or patent-trolled into oblivion.

Please link to the post you made Feb 6 2023 when Blinken decreed the use of Calibri for also-stupid reasons.

Because calling this a wasteful bother and not that just means you're in ignorable tendentious hypocrite.

Thanks for playing.

The one guy concept has been around for a while. Sometimes they use consultants, sometimes it's the gig economy that gets them work that can be done on demand. The AI is going to be another one of those tools. But you don't need two people to have a corporation. I think that describing AI as" replacing the corporation" is really just scare talk. The AI is going to replace jobs, it's also going to make new jobs possible or attractive. As with most all technology that we've seen over the past century, we can't predict all of the effects. I don't think it's the end of anything, though. Monolithic tools that operate in virtually every facet of life bring with them the risk of singular failures. That'll be interesting to watch

As opposed to the open corruption on display with the President personally involving himself in making sure the deal resolves in favor of a major financial backer.

I suppose you have nothing to say about that.

I think the promotion of a Lunar mission is more to give NASA some $ to spread around to their long term partners.

And the NASA-derived mission is just flailing in the dark, what a mess.

"use their personal card for work travel and then file paperwork for reimbursement"
Oh no, you mean like 80% of businesses do?

THE HORROR that someone is actually checking this shit off and signing for it.

Oh, and then the person themselves gets the rewards for their travel which is pretty awesome, instead of the organization using some GSG9's ff miles so Hegseth can pinch the stewardii in first class.

Your landscaper having a degree in botany makes a little bit of sense. At least in Europe where they value quality. Not that you don't get good landscaping in America, but the equation is slightly different