Comment Seems about right (Score 1) 17
I don't think the US actually enforces anything approaching the spirit of robust anti-trust law now. The goalposts have been moved back so many times, they're on another field now.
I don't think the US actually enforces anything approaching the spirit of robust anti-trust law now. The goalposts have been moved back so many times, they're on another field now.
Most likely Firefox will see and change direction. I do think though it'd be ironic if "Thing that relies on X destroys X and then inevitably dies as a result" ends up happening to an Internet browser if people are leaving the browser it's based upon because of the AI shit forced into the latter.
>But in a good model, esp. a thinking model, one
>would expect it to think over which sorts of
>numbers are statistically over-chosen (birthdates,
>etc) and avoid them in giving its answers.
and even then, it doesn't affect the chance of *winning*, but rather the chance of being the *sole* winner, as opposed to having to share the price.
[there *is* another possibility, though, albeit unlikely: it could come across a flaw in the RNG that lets it avoid less likely combinations, or choose a more likely one. Again, though, this requires an RNG flaw.]
just like when it hit three digits?
>Mexico has a half peso coin, worth about 2 cents.
and a peso was like a dollar.
I recall my aunt feeling guilty about what she was paying down there when it dropped to about eight to a dollar.
And then they lopped three zeroes off to get the new peso.
I *think* this is half of those one-thousands of the prior peso . . .
After extreme inflation, small matters of rounding aren't even on the radar for what's important.
[Let alone the 27 or so zeroes lopped off in Germany {where, near the end, workers were reportedly paid twice a day, with their wives bringing wheelbarrows to collect, and rushing to spend it before it fell further! (which may be an urban legend; I've never been able to confirm it, but it's not inconsistent with the daily inflation)}. Or Yugoslavia, which lopped off 30 digits . . . ]
[cloudtrack, err, flare, verification? *REALLY*]
And of further interest, I've never seen one in the US that was a round number of cents--they all end in 9/10 of a cent. (although in years past, 4/10 was also common)
Inertia. Took me several years once streaming had taken off and we pretty much exclusively used our Roku and never used our Dish Network box to persuade the rest of my family that the $60-70/mo we were paying for Dish was a waste of money.
I also suspect a fair number have it for the same reason as their landline, as a reliable back up in case of emergencies. I had to demonstrate our antenna was fine for getting local news stations multiple times to deal with this argument.
That's some dense cheese. It would probably break my teeth.
I'm pretty sure most have some form of IPTV. Comcast even gave us a free box for their version. And honestly, usable gigabit speeds are available over coax, what's the need for fiber? Fiber is over-rated. If the use case is streaming, gigabit is ridiculously over-spec, you could stream 20 movies simultaneously at Blu-ray quality including all the unnecessary uncompressed audio streams for every language included on that disc all at once and still be able to browse the Internet while watching all 20 of them.
There's probably some use case out there that needs that amount of bandwidth, but by god it isn't "replacing cable".
> Where is your centralized TV Guide that allows you to browse and stream on demand as easily as cable does?
On the "Search" menu of the Roku?
I assume the Amazon Stick, Apple TV The Streaming Box, and whatever Google's pushing these days, have the same feature?
> Remember when Cable TV offered an ad-free television viewing experience, for a monthly subscription fee?
No, I don't. Nor do most people reading this.
In fact, I don't know what country you're talking about, but in the US virtually all TV channels - the subscription channels like HBO excepted - in the US provided over cable TV have had ads. That's because cable TV started purely as an alternative to antenna TV to relay the affiliates of the major networks to places that had poor reception. Over time cable-only TV channels were added to the line up, and some started off without ads, but most quickly included ads as they developed. MTV and CNN have always had ads, from day #1, and they're the two channels most people think of as the OG cable-only channels, although of course they weren't the first, but their predecessors were never as significant or as influential.
This "Cable TV was once Ad free" thing is largely a myth - I'm not saying there were never ad-free channels in the cable line up, but it was so early in cable TV's "More than just the broadcast channel" line up it barely is worth mentioning. Those channels played no part in the development and popularization of the format. Most cable TV growth happened long after the last free ad free channel adopted ads.
In an of itself, that's a perfectly cromulant opinion to hold, but I doubt it's going to be shared by a bunch of people with Robinhood accounts paying electronically for the delivery of "freedfrom from techy surfdom".
No, that would be you.
Some people are so obsessed with how great AI is in their mind they can't take it when others point out obvious problems. You would be one of those people. You need to recognize the technology isn't what it's sold as, and you shouldn't be worshipping a technology like a God anyway.
Except the Amiga. Obviously. That was perfect.
The first rule of intelligent tinkering is to save all the parts. -- Paul Erlich