Aquaman 2 is not marvel. And it had Amber Heard (dumb move on their part).

The increase in DEI hiring has lead to products that only a DEI audience would pay for* .
The issue being the *mass audience* doesn't have a DEI demographic profile.

It would be like requiring movie actors, production staff, and writers to be 50% Leprecauns and then wondering why they don't appeal to the mass audience.

The pattern here is that like all software companies, they create something good, then they destroy it by continuing to work on it. There's no reason to buy software again if it does everything you need, and Microsoft is too good at compatibility, so you aren't forced to buy it every three years because it broke in some Windows upgrade.

The only alternative for milking existing software is renting software, which sucks from a consumer point of view, but provides continuous revenue.

The right thing to do, of course, is to declare the software feature-complete and move on, dedicating only minimum employee time to maintenance, so that you get way less profit from that team every year, but have basically no costs, and shift the headcount to work on some new piece of software that will produce your next source of new profits.

But tech companies are lazy. They'd rather create something once and milk it forever and ever. Why is this a problem? Simple. 95-year copyright durations. If we rolled back to the original 1970 duration, when copyright was 14 years and renewable for 14, this wouldn't be an issue. Companies would have a limited amount of time to make money off of the software, because in 28 years, the software would be free for anyone to use, so with reasonable virtualization, you'd have folks using 1996-era versions of Word for free right now.

Add to that a second change in the law — making the cost of renewal be 5% of the total gross revenue for the product to discourage renewal — and you'd have a copyright policy that actually makes sense. If a company is making enough money for it to be worth that cost, then they should be able to extend it for another 14 years, but it should be expensive enough that they don't just automatically do so out of spite. That would mean that most software from 2010 would no longer be under copyright, and companies would not be able to milk software for every last drop of potential profit like they do now, and instead would be forced to actually innovate regularly with new products, thus promoting the progress of science and the useful arts.

Only if Google secretly perfected time travel. They bought Android in 2005, and the iPhone didn't come out until 2007.

The Bluesky Mir is coming ;)

Huh? You're upset that Jack left Bluesky because people there didn't like him? I'm confused.

Sounds like Jack went full Kanye, and got booted out of Bluesky.

He didn't get "booted", but it was a rather amusing situation, where he dropped a bunch of seed money on Jay's project to make Bluesky... only to find out that the vast majority of the people who flocked there don't actually like him, and weren't afraid to let him know ;)

1) You don't open to more people than you have the capacity to serve.

2) They do not use the same backend. Bluesky's backend is specifically designed to fix Mastodon's design flaws that make it so annoying.

3) Bluesky is growing far faster than Mastodon.

It's less about avoiding Apple and Google's digital fiefdoms and more about creating their own digital fiefdom to monetize. That's the only reason why these startups got venture capitalist money; the chance for success isn't high but if it succeeds then the payoff is huge.

That might be a real risk for things like cryptocurrency mining, where being able to do something faster than others determines whether the money spent on electricity is less than the value you get out of it, but it probably isn't realistic for generative AI. Either the hardware is big enough to run your model or it isn't. If it is, then it won't just suddenly become worthless unless you decide that you absolutely have to have a larger model for some reason.

And if that does happen, then it becomes a resource allocation question, deciding whether to spend developer resources to find ways to tune smaller models more so that you get good enough results or spend money to replace the hardware and sell or rent the old hardware to someone who can still use it. After all, it isn't as though hardware becomes worthless just because it no longer meets your needs.

You'll always be able to get bigger, faster hardware in five years. That's not a good reason not to own the means of production. You either own the means of production and you're in the owner class or you don't and you're in the worker class, and having a bunch of companies in the worker class really isn't sustainable.

An A100 40GB costs $8,399.00. Renting it ranges from $1200 to $2682 per month.

How bad does the failure rate and/or power consumption have to be for it to make sense to spend 1/7 to 2/7 of the purchase price to rent it for a month? Yikes. That makes rental car rates look downright reasonable, and you don't have to worry about people totalling a GPU on the 405.

That's not really an accurate way to describe it. As people get older, they become less able to adapt to change. Becoming more conservative is a natural part of the brain aging process.

Conservatives always say this, but that doesn't make it true. There are plenty of very wealthy people who earn real money and still pay lots of money in taxes. To them it is about responsibility — from those to whom much is given, much is expected. And while being wealthy does make some people more fiscally conservative, the wealthy also tend to be more socially liberal, i.e. their politics are not aligned with the U.S. right wing at all.

People become more socially conservative with age only because they become less able to adapt to change, not because of wealth or because they're "becoming wiser".

The real market is investors. He's seeking a $6B valuation on x.ai, which is just nonsensical vs. what they're offering.

How is a flow chart...

You stopped after reading two word and ignored every other word in the post. *eyeroll*

Predicting words is just about resonance

The word "resonance" is a non-sequitur in that sentence. You might as well have written, "Predicting words is all about Australopithecus."

For me it's the Final Fantasy II trap.

As a kid, my first run through Final Fantasy II, I had gotten like halfway through when I hit a fairly difficult area, and I was getting tired of the fights, so rather than spending time leveling up and whatnot before going there, I just increasingly started making a habit of running away from enemies. And it worked great, I got further and further and further, really quickly. But my level correspondingly fell further and further behind what it should have been for the area, to the point where ultimately I could no longer beat the bosses and advance further.

He comes up with the most mind-bogglingly stupid ideas based on how twisted his conception of reality has gotten. Basically, in his reality, news articles are probable lies, but people who get lots of likes on Twitter are probable truths.