We will never have "real" AI because every time we approach it, someone moves the bar as to what is required. It's been happening since the mid-late '80s. We *have* what would have qualified as AI according to the rules of '86-'87.
Then clearly we're dealing with a "Berlin clock sucker".
I've never had the battery on a UPS last longer than 2 years. Have you checked out what those batteries cost to replace? About $25 less than the cost of a new UPS. Considering that I usually keep a computer for 10 years, I'd have spent nearly 3 times as much on UPS batteries since I bought this beast than I spent on the computer and it's ancillary equipment.
I can live with having to restart after a five minute power outage at that price, thank you very much.
If I can afford something and want it, don't worry -- I'll find it. Advertising only works because the average grunt has more money than brains.
I have no spare money to spend on the overpriced piffle they keep advertising, so why should I waste my time letting them download and putting up with their annoying animations and bullshit?
I insist on the right to refuse any tickets from the moron in sales who never makes a fresh pot of coffee when it's out.
Don't mess with my programming fuel!
You're still first for billions of dollars spent on warfare.
You're still first in number of people incarcerated per capita.
You still lead in the number of gun-related murders per capita.
And you still lead the world in thousands of dollars per capita spent on healthcare.
Personally I find it to be useless for my needs. Most of my searching is for tech documentation, example code, how-tos, and such. For whatever reason, Google just finds a lot more relevant material than Bing, and usually what I need is within the first 3-4 links on the results page. With Bing, I find that one often has to go through a page or two of results, skipping the obvious chaff in order to find anything relevant.
I've no idea how the two compare on non-technical searches, though.
Don't forget these were the "family friendly" seventies. It really limited just how "edgy" a show could be in it's writing, and technology *seriously* limited the effectiveness of F/X.
But you know what? I enjoyed what "SciFi" there was at the time. It sure beat the heck out of crap like "Dallas" or "Hee-Haw".
On the contrary, modern supercomputers are designed for energy and thermal efficiency that rivals and exceeds that of smartphones. Granted, you wouldn't want to put one of these NVidia chipsets in a smart phone, but in terms of compute power per watt, they're far more efficient than general purpose computers.
That said, they do consume a lot of power. But that's precisely why they're engineered for efficiency -- when you're getting the bill for such a monster, that extra 10W/core adds up big time.
That's a little misleading. It's not like they would have locked down the design to use components in 1984. That's just when they started talking about the project. The design likely wasn't locked down until 5 years before launch or so.
In other words, you're only "anonymous" if you don't matter.
With one exception, the best managers I had over a 30+ year career knew nothing about programming. What they knew about was shielding developers from unrealistic expectations, pushing back on the user community's unreasonable and inconsistent demands, ensuring that budgets were adequate for the projects, arranging support from other departments (such as shipping/receiving and purchasing), and listening to what their technical staff were telling them about proposals and in-the-pipe projects.
The one exception was good at those things, too; they just happened to also have over 20 years of programming experience from running their own consulting business.
The worst bosses I had were the ones who'd take the arbitrary "requirements" dictated by the user communities and tell the developers they "had" to meet those impossible schedules, who failed to make resources and budget available to do the work necessary, who overscheduled critical resources such as designers and senior developers, and who insisted on meetings between the users and even the most junior of technicians to "get on the same page."
The one common thread of every bad manager I ever had? They were MBA majors. Not as a secondary add-on degree, but as their primary degree.
Funny thing is, I'm *not* one who just considers "my generation's" music to be music. I listen to stuff ranging from 1920's blues and jazz on up through big band, "classic" 50's rock, 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's, and even some '00s. But I haven't heard a *new* band that I actually like in about 10 years.
But more to the point is the fact that most of YouTube's content is cat videos, how-to guides, and people doing dumb shit on a dare. Very little of what I "watch" on YouTube is "music", and most of the music I "watch" is illegal copies of old tunes that would get YouTube/Google in trouble if they tried to charge to access it.
Most of what gets posted to YouTube in the first place doesn't qualify as "music", especially what gets posted by the labels.