Comment Re: How is this even "tech" anymore? (Score 1) 30
Marketing, spamming, and scamming are big biz. Jerky companies are still part of the economy.
Marketing, spamming, and scamming are big biz. Jerky companies are still part of the economy.
Foreign companies thinking about creating jobs in The Netherlands may now think twice. "Could something similar happen to me?"
It's a Dutch fab company that got gobbled up by a Chinese company. It was originally part of Philips. Foreign companies didn't create jobs in this case, unless the fab grew significantly in the last six years. If anything, they've been selling off some of their existing fabs.
From all indications, the main purpose of the takeover was to prevent sending technology secrets to China, and possibly to prevent the illegal sale of their chips to Russia.
Nothing to see here. Move along.
Amen! They should let underlings rate bosses also. While it shouldn't be the main criteria for management evaluations, it should be a consideration.
They can answer with all the market data that says that people like the noise.
You may not, but you're not everyone, are you?
This. The dot-com bubble was still a bubble, but there were real companies producing real websites, some of which were even useful.
It's the same thing with AI. The fact that the technology exists and sometimes is used for things that are useful doesn't change the fact that there's a *huge* hype bubble around AI, and everybody and their mother is dumping piles of money into AI, hoping that they'll get lucky and back one of the winning horses. All the while, companies with no real business plan other than "AI" or "AI first" or whatever are hoping the investors won't notice that the companies really don't know what to do with AI, and they're just hoping that if they build it better, first, they'll "win" or whatever.
It's a bubble. It's a huge bubble. I have no idea when it will burst, but it will. They always do.
always happens.
the tech giants making the biggest AI investments are fueling their ambitions by cash on hand -- not loading up balance sheets with debt.
They are using their increased hype-supported stock price.
They're working on tangible technology that has actual orders behind it...
Let's see the actual orders. If you give it away for free (to gain market share) then demand will indeed appear, but what about when the subsidies dry up?
the current enterprise-to-sales ratios are also much lower than those of the dominant companies in the late 1990s.
Because as mentioned, many existing companies are behind the AI boom, and they have enterprise value from other products. Since most don't published their AI revenue or bundle it, it's possible it's embarrassingly small.
...to horny jail me...
I'm curious if it would kill ALL who drink it, say a cup full, or would some survive (after a long hospital stay)?
suff ned
To be fair, did people pay considerable premiums because the features that require cloud services were critical to them, or did they because it was Bose?
Did Bose sell non-cloud speakers? Yes? Then they paid a premium because of those features. The fact that streaming to multiple speakers requires the cloud is, by itself, a major bricking of basic functionality that probably destroys the entire utility of these speakers for a large percentage of their users.
Our job as nerds isn't to rail at Bose for discontinuing something when we knew that was always going to happen, and indeed is a necessity when it comes to cloud services - you think these things will be maintainable forever?
Yes. If the company is competent, yes. This is all just trivial server logic. You maintain a fixed frontend/server endpoint library that parses the inputs and ties it to your backend systems. If you rewrite a backend (which should be rare), you update all of the frontend code to translate the data as needed. If you want to change the way your data is passed between the device and the server, you fork a new endpoint library.
The ongoing cost to support older devices, then, is an hour or two of maintenance work if you do some major backend rewrite, or pretty much zero otherwise, because you're continuing to keep the servers alive to provide services for your current devices.
So when a company says that it is turning down support for older devices because it can't afford to support them, what it really means is either A. they have saturated the market, and the only way to get people to buy the old devices is through planned obsolescence of the old devices, B. they have found some critical security bug in the old firmware and nobody knows how to build new firmware for the hardware anymore because the toolchain won't run on their current operating system, or C. they're incompetent and don't know how to design servers properly.
Either way, it's a strong reason to never buy their products again.
Our job is to educate, and ensure people don't lose those skills that were commonplace 5-10 years ago.
It was a cloud service. Cloud services disappear. Nobody should rely on functionality provided by cloud servers. My own beef with Bose here, aside from the fact their equipment is overpriced, is that they provided a "cloud service" in the first place. They shouldn't have.
I mean, yes ostensibly, but the reality is that cloud services shouldn't be *allowed* to disappear unless the company is either going out of business or is shuttering an entire business unit. As long as Bose still makes any cloud-based speakers at all, that's really not okay.
Brexit shall hex it.
Taxes, the report said, "create acres of news coverage, but among the majority of our entrepreneurs, this does not appear to be the deciding factor about where to live."
Because republicans and media owners are obsessed with tax. Their ghosts will haunt the halls going "Taaaxes Taaaxes, I could have been Yuuuuge if not for Taaaxes"...
...and clean up some of Access's design warts. Devs would often create apps in 3 weeks that web stacks take 8 months, largely because one person would quickly interact with actual users and adjust stuff on the fly. Can't do that with bloated layer-happy web stacks.
(MS-Access isn't the only tool with that property, just the most common. And yes, amateur devs often messes, but that's not the tool's fault.)
The real virus does not stay confined to your lungs, nor even mostly confined to your lungs
Of course not - but it is a long way from the blood and the heart.
That's simply not true. COVID caused a 30% increase in heart attack deaths among young adults during the first two years of the pandemic, with undiagnosed myocarditis believed to be the primary culprit. Myocarditis and pericarditis are, respectively, inflammation of the heart muscle and the area around it, caused by an immune response to an infection.
So COVID absolutely can get into your blood, can infect blood cells, and can spread anywhere in your body. It isn't guaranteed to reach your heart, and in fact, serious heart complications are relatively rare, but it can, and COVID-infection-induced myocarditis and pericarditis are both well-documented at this point.
Also, I think you're also misunderstanding how intramuscular injection works. The vaccine isn't put into your bloodstream like an IV. It is put into a muscle. And unlike the virus, which is self-replicating and can move around your body over time, the vaccine infects a cell once and produces output for a specific amount of time before it self-destructs, so unless you get very unlucky and end up with some of the vaccine getting somewhere that it doesn't belong, the overwhelming majority of the vaccine stays confined to the muscle into which it is injected, as do most of the spike proteins. To the extent that it spreads, it mainly ends up in the local lymph nodes. The amount that ends up in random parts of your body is normally very small.
That's why the statistical risk from the virus is considerably higher than the risk from the vaccines. Even though your immune system is attacking those foreign proteins, it almost never is happening in your heart with the vaccine, whereas it is much more likely to be happening in your heart with a natural infection, and that risk increases by something like 11x if you have never been vaccinated because it takes longer for your immune system to realize that it needs to kick into gear and attack the virus.
Why do you think one of the most common first symptoms of COVID (*before* respiratory symptoms) is diarrhea?
Because mucus full of the virus goes down the throat. Epithelial spreading from top to bottom.
If the actual virus was getting to your heart muscles it's already a very serious infection, even if it is relatively asymptomatic.
Yes, that's certainly one way that it can get there, but once something is in your nose, gut, or lungs, the barrier to your bloodstream is minimal. After all, if that were not the case, you would not be able to breathe or absorb nutrients from food.
Either way, the point of that comment wasn't that it gets to your digestive system through the blood, but rather that it doesn't stay mostly confined to your lungs, and can spread anywhere in your body. The lungs aren't really even the primary target/symptom area at this point.
The lungs are the direct conduit to the bloodstream, of course, but what do you think causes the clotting? The binding of the spike protein to the ACE2 receptor.
Actually, no. It is believed to be caused by the virus attacking and damaging the epithelial cells that line the blood vessels. The ACE2 receptor just happens to be how the virus gets into those cells, and that's also what makes it sometimes attack the heart muscle in young people and cause myocarditis.
That, coupled with lower bloodstream involvement in general, explains why there's no sign of increased heart attacks or strokes after mRNA-based COVID vaccination. The shots that did potentially cause clotting issues were the ones built around attenuated viruses.
If you forgot the main point I was making, it's that the vaccine platform isn't the cause of the clotting - it's the proteins it produces that mimic the virus structure.
Except it isn't, as I said above.
But even if what you're saying turned out to be correct, the virus would still do exactly the same thing, but with an actual virus behind those spike proteins. So instead of just causing your body to temporarily act like it has gotten a low dose of an ACE inhibitor and have slightly lower blood pressure, it also attacks the cells it hits and kills or damages them. Instead of rare cases of mild myocarditis from those spike proteins interacting with the heart muscle that mostly resolve on their own, you have cases of acute myocarditis often resulting in death.
Any time you have a vaccine whether weakened or mRNA, there's a chance that the symptoms caused by the virus will also be caused by the vaccine, just typically with much lower severity. And the whole point of that vaccination is to expose you at a lower level so that when your body sees it for real, it attacks it more quickly and prevents you from having those bad outcomes.
If I'd known computer science was going to be like this, I'd never have given up being a rock 'n' roll star. -- G. Hirst