And my point is that AI wouldn't just stop being used even if the bubble imploded so heavily that all of the major AI providers of today went under. It's just too easy to run today. The average person who wants something free would on average use a worse-quality model, but they're not going to just stop using models. And inference costs for higher-end models would crash if the big AI companies were no longer monopolozing the giant datacentres (which will not simply vanish just because their owners lose their shirts; power is only about a third the cost of a datacentre, and it gets even cheaper if you idle datacentres during their local electricity peak-demand times).

They will make it worse because the driver at least has an incentive for his vehicle to be clean. A robot taxi doesn't care if the previous passenger vomited in the seat.

With everything going on with air traffic based issues since Trump started destroying the FAA and all other government agencies

What are you talking about ? If the Dems in the senate...as few as 5 of them would vote to pass the CLEAN Continuing Resolution, the govt would open and things would go to normal.....

This is the same CR that they have all voted on numerous times.....it isn't Trumps fault here, it's the Dems holding the US hostage here...

the ends do not justify the illegal and unconstitutional means.

Exactly what illegal and unconstitutional means do you propose are happening exactly?

Your scenario is impossible, so try again.

Because we're discussing a scenario where the big AI companies have gone out of business, remember? And the question is whether people just stop using the thing that they found useful, or whether they merely switch to whatever alternative still works.

It's like saying that if Amazon went out of business, people would just stop buying things online because "going to a different website is too hard". It's nonsensical.

They believed you could mimic intelligence with clockwork, etc. Why do you only count if it if it involves computers?

If you want to jump to the era of *modern* literature, the generally first accepted robot in (non-obscure) modern literature is Tik-Tok from the Oz books, first introduced in 1907. As you might guess from the name, his intelligence was powered by clockwork; he was described as no more able to feel emotions than a sewing machine, and was invented and built by Smith and Tinker (an inventor and an artist). Why not electronic intelligence? Because the concept of a programmable electronic computer didn't exist then. Even ENIAC wasn't built until 1945. The best computers in the world in 1907 worked by... wait for it... clockwork. The most advanced "computer" in the world at the time was the Dalton Adding Machine (1902), the first adding machine to have a 10-digit keyboard. At best some adding machines had electric motors to drive the clockwork, but most didn't even have that; they had to be wound. This is the interior of the most advanced computer in the world in the era Tik-Tok was introduced. While in the Greco-Roman era, it might be something like this (technology of the era that, to a distant land that heard of it, probably sounded so advanced that it fueled the later rumours that Greco-Romans were building clockwork humans capable of advanced actions, even tracking and hunting down spies).

I think this is an oversimplification. Musk dreams of a sci-fi future. Isaacman does too (and is friends with Musk). Duffy wants to gut NASA. Hence, Musk strongly supported Isaacman. It's not too complicated; you don't need to search for subtext when what's out in the open makes perfect sense.

They don't have to "understand" anything. They just have to know that "If I go to this website, I can still ask the AI questions, even though ChatGPT shut down". Or that "If I click to install this app, I get an icon on my desktop and I can ask the AI questions there".

This is what got me. Why the hell are they calling a crypto auction something aimed at "the AI generation", when they clearly mean "Cryptobros"?

This is unscientific, but long ago I once conducted a poll on the Stable Diffusion subreddit, and one of the questions asked about peoples' opinions of crypto and NFTs. Only a small percentage liked it. The most popular poll choice by far was one with wording along the lines of "Crypto and NFTs should both go drown in a ditch."

It's an entirely different market segment. Crypto and NFTs appeal to gamblers, criminals, and anarcho-libertarians. AI appeals to those who want to create things, to automate things, and to save time or accomplish more. There's no logical relation between "This high school kid wants to save time on her homework" and "this 42-year-old mechanic thinks this bad drawing of an ape is going to be worth millions some day because a hash somewhere links its checksum to his private key."

The GP's comment wasn't accusing there of being a nuclear waste problem (there isn't). They were talking about how nuclear waste can be burned in a breeder reactor, producing orders of magnitude more than the burning of a couple tenths of a percent of the natural uranium in a conventional reactor does.

Despite the press hype about thorium (which is way more popular among the media and nerds on the internet than with actual nuclear engineers), nuclear power is already basically unlimited, even without breeder reactors (which are very much viable tech, and much more mature than thorium). Only with an incredibly weak definition is it in any meaningfully way "limited" - if you limit yourself to currently quantified reserves, at current fuel prices, with production mining tech, you have a bit over two centuries worth at current burn rates. But this is obviously nonsense. Uranium production tech isn't going to advance in *two centuries*? Nobody is going to explore for more in *two centuries*? And as for "at current prices" - fuel is only a very small percentage of the cost of fission power, so who cares if prices rise? And rising prices or advancing production tech doesn't just put linearly more of a resource onto a market, they put exponentially more onto the market. As an example with uranium: seawater uranium could power the world's current (overwhelmingly non-breeder) reactor fleet for 13000 years, and current lab-scale tech is projected to be nearly as cheap as conventional uranium production at scale.

Also, if you switch to breeder reactors, you don't just extend the amount of fuel you have by two orders of magnitude - the cost of the raw mined uranium also becomes two orders of magnitude less relevant than its already very small percentage of the cost of fission power generation, because you need so much less per kWh.

As for any thoraboos in the comments section: thorium fuel is more complex and expensive to fabricate (fundamentally - thorium dioxide has a higher melting point and is much harder to sinter), it's more complex to reprocess (it's more difficult to dissolve), its waste is much more hazardous over human timescales, the claimed resistance to nuclear proliferation is bunk, the tech readiness level is low and the costs are very high, and it's unclear it'll ever be economically competitive - most in the nuclear industry are highly dubious (due to what's needed to actually burn it vs. uranium). Hence the lack of investment. And I say this with the acknowledgement that nuclear power is already a very expensive form of electricity generation.

This. Get a type-C dock so you only have a single cable to plug in when you set the laptop down.
These docks typically come with multiple A/C ports, monitor connections, ethernet, power for the laptop, extra storage (automated backups whenever you're at your desk etc).

The USB stick can be wiped and reused for something else.
USB sticks, or SD cards etc are not very expensive.
The optical media might be cheaper, but the combination of media and drive is not, plus to get a good price on media you usually need to buy a spindle. Unless your regularly using optical media for other purposes, it's actually a lot more expensive for a one off installation.

That's exactly what any consumer router or firewall does by default.
Your ID suggests you might have been around long enough to remember when legacy IP was used in this way too - with proper routable address space on both sides of the firewall. That's exactly how a firewall is designed to work, NAT is just extra complexity that introduces new problems.

With routable space both sides it's easy to verify your firewall configuration works as intended.
With non routable space behind you're relying on the upstream not to pass packets to you with the non routable address as destination. Typically this won't happen because the ISP's router won't know to route traffic for that block via your router. But what if such traffic does arrive on the WAN port of your router?
Unless explicitly configured to drop it, most devices will dutifully route it inside.

You think this can't happen? It can. Many ISPs put their customers into a shared WAN subnet so the other customers are layer 2 adjacent and can absolutely send packets to your router with an internal destination address. Have you tested this scenario? Just one of the many ways complexity is added.

It's not "too complex", it works the same as legacy IP did just with a larger address space. You only think it's too complex because you've never bothered to learn about it properly.

In fact, once you add in all the kludges used to keep legacy ip limping along (nat, address overlaps, misuse of reserved or squatted address space, address recycling etc etc etc) then IPv6 is actually much simpler.

What ISP gives you a subnettable allocation of legacy ip for home use?

The standard for a v6 home allocation is /56 (see: https://www.ripe.net/publicati...) which lets you create 256 standard /64 subnets. If you get anything less you have a lousy ISP.

If you don't have any choice of ISP then legacy IP is one of the reasons - any new provider would be forced to pay a lot of money for legacy space, and pay a lot more to implement CGNAT while providing inferior service to customers.

If you don't have a subnettable allocation then you need to resort to kludges like NAT, which you're almost certainly doing for legacy traffic already. Yes v6 should be better, but even in a worst case it's not any worse.

Also a lot of users apply legacy thinking and assume the v6 allocation on the WAN interface is all you get. This is generally true for legacy IP because you're only given a single address on the WAN port and expected to NAT. With v6 you still get a single address on the WAN port but you're expected to use prefix delegation to get a separate subnet for use behind your router. Yes your router can actually be a router and not a glorified proxy with NAT.
Legacy IP actually works the same way, but typically only large businesses can afford enough address space to be able to route and subnet it properly.