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

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.

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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.

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.

It gets a pass because it does not purport to be the truth.

When religious teachings are limited to the existence of creator beings and deities and things that you can't see or interact with, no. They're just mythology. When they are limited to how you should behave at a high level, no. They're just philosophy. There are bright lines, though, like telling people how to vote, where religion stops being religion and starts being a political organization under the guise of religion, and that's not okay.

It also starts to become very grey when religious leaders advocate things like vaccine refusal, because that can cause public health crises, like the rather alarming measles outbreak in Texas. I would argue that doing so is crossing a line, because as was proven in that case, even the relative isolation of a religious community is not adequate to prevent a lack of vaccinations from causing a major public health crisis across multiple counties.

Depends. If the scientist's theory provides robust evidence, was authored by someone without a history of publishing fake papers and who has no ties to anyone with such a history, uses math and research methodologies appropriately, and has been published in a peer-reviewed journal that is appropriate for the subject area, then it should be followed up with additional studies to figure out why there is a conflict between the previous studies.

If the scientist's theory provides little more than a different way to manipulate the numbers from other studies (metaanalysis) in ways that contradict scientific consensus, with no new data, was authored by or edited by someone who has authored multiple similar papers that attempt to push a similar viewpoint, is filled with blatant methodology errors that should be obvious to a second-year college student in the sciences or social sciences, and is a medical article published in a physics journal, it should be immediately discredited as complete and utter garbage.

There is a point in the middle beyond which it makes no sense to give something the benefit of the doubt.

When a scientist is repeatedly falsifying information or repeatedly using poor scientific practices with obvious methodology errors or misunderstanding the basic science of what they're talking about while writing a paper filled with pseudoscientific bulls**t in a way intended to fool lay people who don't understand the science into believing it, that's disinformation.

When a journalist reads such a paper and promotes it as proof that their preexisting opinion was right all along, that's disinformation. When this is further fueled and amplified by professional chaos mongers in Russian troll farms, that's disinformation.

Finally, if the "proof" of something is published only in a YouTube video or similar, that one factor by itself is enough to guarantee that it is garbage without even considering any of the other factors above, because it means what they are saying is so obviously false that if someone read it on paper, they would immediately call the author a moron, but they're hiding that tiny bit of dubious information, spread across a one-hour video, because baiting the audience will get more views on their channel.

It does. But the key word here is *healthy*. And part of that requires everyone involved in the conversation having a proper understanding that the vast majority of papers that go against the status quo turn out to be incorrect, either because of methodology mistakes (honest) or because of falsified data (fraud). As long as the folks reading the papers read it with a healthy skepticism, it's fine.

Where it becomes a problem is when a few researchers repeatedly and intentionally create multiple similar dissenting papers with similar flaws, getting retraction after retraction, in an apparent effort to mislead, and then people latch onto those papers as truth and ignore the retractions after major flaws are pointed out, or worse see the retractions as proof of some kind of conspiracy to hide the truth.

Where it becomes disinformation is when people start cherry-picking those dissenting papers, ignoring the mountain of evidence that contradicts those papers, and using only the cherry-picked papers to claim that their fringe viewpoint is the truth and everyone else is wrong. And unfortunately, a certain subset of the media, influencers, etc. were very much doing that, and it got out of control.

That's not healthy debate. That's Fox News and one side shouting over the other, reinforcing people's preconceived notions. That's the opposite of healthy debate, and resulted in people being the opposite of healthy, which is to say, dead from COVID.

I mean yes, ostensibly, but the flip side of that is that a functioning society requires people to do certain things for the good of society that they often don't want to do. Obey the speed limit. Send your kids through a properly accredited school system. Pay taxes. Vaccination is no different.

At this point, we let COVID get out of control by ending lockdowns too early and not taking adequate steps to isolate people with severe immunodeficiency to ensure that they did not become variant manufacturing plants, so further annual vaccination provides limited public health benefit, and mostly serves to protect the individual, with the possible exception of mandates among healthcare workers who work around the elderly. The same is true for the flu shot.

But that is not true for vaccinations in general, and it is also not really true for the initial vaccination, because allowing your kid to die from COVID or grow up without a parent because you did is at least arguably child abuse, and has a very real societal cost. So it is entirely within the scope of governments' interest to mandate vaccinations for certain diseases if you want to be a part of normal society, e.g. requiring your children to have vaccinations before they start school.