Ok, but how does it work in the scenario where it pushed another package into the street and then the package gets hit by a car? A package that may have nothing to do with Amazon aside from it being pushed into the street.

Also, from my experience with this, it's true that 90% of the time they are pretty agreeable, but coincidentally the 10% of the time where they are skeptical just happens to be the more expensive stuff.

I just don't order expensive stuff from amazon. Actually, Amazon is only if I can't get it anywhere else reasonable nowadays.

Of course, problem is the lack of availability of similar data for successful companies.

To the extent it *might* work, that's all the stronger case to keep your successful company's information confidential, to avoid helping future competition be a broadly more capable company.

So we are still stuck at training your model to be a crappy business.

Train models mostly on the communications of failed businesses... What could go wrong?

Think this was more about the business side than the execution side.

They can be just fine if Linux desktop is seen as 'acceptable' in the mass market. The operative word being 'seen', not if it should be acceptable, but if people believe it to be.

It's a tall order to shift the perception of the mass market.

If Microsoft screws over their users, and now 'just enough laptop' can be bought from Apple within a price range long deemed 'adequate', then AMD/Intel essentially *need* people to decide they *love* linux desktops, and broadly speaking at this point the mass market is "a device that runs a browser and who cares about OS as long as it's not actively pissing me off".

It actually might go badly for Linux desktops if Windows screws up their market share too badly. Apple does not give a shit about Linux support and so Linux desktop largely lives on the standardized ecosystem in x86 side in part thanks to the separation of concerns between the hardware vendors and Microsoft. If Microsoft managed to kill the Windows desktop hypothetically, might be hard pressed to have any hardware for Linux desktops to run on anymore...

To me the hoops that smoothbrains will jump through to avoid IPv6 and stay on legacy IPv4, especially when hosting, is pathetic. NAT, port forwarding, tunnels, blah blah blah blah.

I have something like ~1.2 trillion times the number of routable addresses that the entire IPv4 space has. Not all are reachable, of course, just the services that need incoming access and they're each on their own isolated DMZ.

Because GenAI screws up, and screwing up is less of a big deal for the attacker, but can be a huge deal for the defender.

Attacking GenAI fails and either your attempt does nothing and you are no worse off, or it accidentally trashes a system that you were trying to control or copy data from, but you didn't care about that

Well, compared to the Windows release strategy...

Forgot to add: if you enable IPv6, be sure to use the browser extension IPvFoo. It shows a small 4 or 6 in your URI bar to let you know what protocol you're connecting to. Once enabled, you'll see just how much stuff out there actually is IPv6.

Started the move about 18 months ago when I decided to get off my lazy ass. My ISP gives out a /56 prefix, so that lets me run 256 /64 subnets/VLANs in the house, currently there are ~10 in use. Everything get a GUA through SLAAC and I use RAs (Router Advertisements) to give ULAs to everything. Any external facing services get their own VLAN and /64 for the system(s) as needed. Firewall blocks all incoming as they usually do by default and I punch a hole for the external-facing systems. They can't reach back into the network, they only answer the phone. All the systems update DNS dynamically if the prefix or full address ever change.

I have an SSH bastion set up. In all this time there has not been a single SSH attempt from the internet. On IPv4 it was constant background noice.
For those legacy IPv4-only systems on the internet, I set up NAT64. I have an IoT VLAN and IoT 2.4 GHz wireless network that are only IPv4 because a lot of IoT network stacks are junk.

I'm still farting around with it, but man oh man, there's no way I'd go back to IPv4. It was one of the best moves I've done in ages.

That's assuming that you even publish the code at all. Looks like they would keep their codebase internal.

GenAI is a bit nicer for offense than defense.

If you are an attacker, the time and consequences of a GenAI mistakes can be more easily ignored. Whoops, an attack that didn't work but you weren't going to succeed anyway. If it screws up the target in a way that you didn't actually want, you may have an opportunity cost because you wanted that data or to ransom the data, but you didn't care *that* much about the data. It's actually a pretty unambiguous 'win' for malicious users since the usual downsides don't matter.

If doing defense, the consequences of GenAI mistakes are more costly. An erroneous security fix actually becomes a hole. A change that loses data is data you actually care about.

All that said, I'm not sure closed sourcing and maintaining an open fork would realistically do anything. I doubt the proprietary fork would be sufficiently different to protect them from hypothetical security issues in their codebase.

And thousands of other comparable pivots went nowhere.

At least with amazon, you could connect the dots, ok, we are investing in an online bookstore, ok, now they are selling more stuff, but it's still selling online stuff... Many years later they start being seen as a compute vendor, but only after they had shown in-house prowess for years prior.

This is just coming out of nowhere with no continuity purporting to mysteriously outmaneuver every existing player despite the big issues in their way being well known and aren't going to be alleviated unless you make your own fabs and chips...

Ok, guess I'll give it a shot:

AI AI AI AI AI AI. Give me funding.

That should do it.

A company that has zero demonstrated technological assets, whose only logistics experience pertains to shoes...

And they vaguely purport to be able to secure compute hardware better than all the existing players out there, despite everyone knowing exactly where the bottlenecks are and who is clogging them up...

What idiots invested in this concept? How many millions can I get if I just randomly declare I'm going to get more and better GPUs than all the well known AI players?

The deluded state seems to be a result of the all-hyped Chat interface designed to agree with you, which causes lines of conversations that should be corrected or ignored to be encouraged. So you have a sycophantic external 'validation' for your questionable thoughts.

For the executives, they have a lot of that, with or without the ChatBot, but more importantly it *must* be true for them to get their payoff.