Even if we, for sake of argument, accept the theory that Apple products are suffering for want of 'AI'; what's the case for Apple to pay a fairly stiff premium to acquire vs. just taking advantage of the current state of the market; where there are multiple people who will fight for the opportunity to lose money on every sale and attempt to make it up in volume?

Absent a fairly specific argument why Apple needs to own one; rather than just snapping up some of the useful people or commanding the influence that being a customer with actual money tends to provide over suppliers that are in the process of bleeding out, the idea that Apple needs to buy into 'AI' seems sort of like the idea that Apple needs to buy into DRAM, except that it's vastly more evident that Apple's products actually need DRAM; and Apple still doesn't go there because why bother with a capital intensive business whose margins are constantly buffeted by spot prices and on the thin side when you are buying enough that you don't need to worry about your place in line?

It's not clear that that's an either-or. A financial sector metastasizing into the real economy is going to have many of the same symptoms.

I can't speak to this particular airport... but, for most of them, I suspect you'd find those areas were mostly open space when the airport was first designed and built.

ROT...14?

14!!

BRILLIANT!

"Within our lifetime, engineers will go from bricklayers to architects, focusing on the creativity of designing systems rather than the manual labor of putting them together."

Scott Wu obviously doesn't know very much about what an engineer actually is or historically has done.

I don't have any 32-bit machines either, but - "stuff that matters" doesn't necessarily mean it has to matter to me personally.

I don't consider all debian stories irrelevant just because my machines are running almalinux...

Ask him if he prefers vim or emacs.

When my wife and I were first married (also before social media), we would eat pretty frequently at a particular Mexican restaurant. It got to where the waiter would already have our usual "super nachos" in hand the first time he arrived at our table.

I imagine if you're a restaurant charging $500 for a meal, you want to do everything you can to make your service stand out.

This seems more like a "Zuckerberg threatens hundreds of billions for AI datacenters" situation.

In all seriousness; even if you are an 'AI' optimist(perhaps especially so, since you presumably think that this isn't just Zuck pissing away more money after his metaverse successes); would you want Facebook to have a commanding position in the area? It's not literally the worst possible company to potentially have to deal with; but it tries.

Given the level of commitment it implies; basically the most lightweight of expendable pilot programs even if you are saying that you 'plan to' in a legally binding context; is seems at best exceptionally dubious to treat the answers to "do you plan to adopt generative AI?" as straightforwardly meaningful.

The differences mean something; it's just not obvious to what degree they reflect actual company strategy, vs. personal fascination with the new shiny thing, vs. people saying what they think the audience wishes to hear.

It's sort of an interesting mix of goofy hype and actual(but relatively boring) worth-looking-into.

Not so much because of 'quantum' necessarily; it's entirely possible that someone will get an at least somewhat worrisome classical efficiency improvement worked out before the quantum computing types reach anything of useful size; and it's probably worth betting money that particular cryptographic implementations will turn out to be flawed; but because it takes a fair amount of awareness to even have a complete idea of what you are running; and more than that to know the implications of needing to swap it out in some or all locations.

The people selling 'quantum' and 'post-quantum security' are mostly in the business of "forget your boring arduous problems by focusing on our exciting ones!"(good business; bad way to do security); but it's a pretty solid idea to be aware of the boring arduous problem of exactly what ciphers you use, and what implementations, and whether there are any places where you've inadvertently left a compatibility toggle that allows something to be downgraded to some 90s 'export grade' cipher; and have an idea of how hard it would be to change ciphers or update implementations if you needed to for one reason or another.

Shockingly enough, the people with the biggest marketing blitzes and best 'executive whitepapers' with stock photos of shadowed hoodie hackers and chinese quantum AI owning your cyber are not the ones mostly advising that you should do some really boring systems administration and SBoM stuff while waiting for mature industry-standard implementations to become available; so the people selling immature proprietary implementations and dubious silver bullets tend to out-shout the more sensible ones.

Move to quadruple ROT-13, ASAP!

At least remember the old Slashdot byline properly - "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters".

And, for the record, yes - this qualifies as both.

So they've done a "study" that shows a product they're developing and intending to sell will be beneficial.

No conflicts of interest there, no siree... I'm sure the science is sound and needs no further checking.

Every few years, someone claims to have "probably" found Amelia Earheart's airplane. In the end, it never pans out... but, in the meantime, that someone manages to keep themselves in the news for a little while.

Wake me when they've actually confirmed the find.