If there is one thing I've learned with the tiny amount of reading I've done on ethics in philosophy, its the fact that nearly every ethical framework is ripe with flaws. So figuring out what the "correct" ethical framework to use -- if you could theoretically do this -- will be super difficult.

Honestly, the ideas put forth for applying this hypothetical AI, is trash. An AI like this would be better suited as an advisor system for the public to use to understand the ramifications of a policy plan that the government wants to enact. Kind of like a benchmark for figuring out how shit some plan will be.

Amazon and Microsoft jump to mind. Both have been involved in defense contracts and they are large enough that I don't see them having ideological issues with becoming involved in actual war-related business in the same way that I could see Apple or Google's employees having a shit fit. There isn't anyone within industry though that could probably take over unless they look abroad (which is possible but I don't know if it would happen) -- ex: Mitsubishi or Samsung both have defense sectors.

They've already pretty much spun the space company off -- it's called ULA now. ULA was formed as a joint, 50-50 venture, between Boeing and Lockheed. Boeing still operates somewhat within the space sector (ex: SLS), but the majority of government contracts are handled by ULA these days.

Wrong. The last time this happened and Nvidia tried to play the market with guessing how the demand would stay, they got burned.

Crypto-mining crash leaves Nvidia with 'excess' inventory of Pascal cards

Miners only offer supply when the crypto market is ballooned, like it is now, and then once that's gone, the demand vanishes.

Its even worse this time around since everyone is leaning on Samsung and TMSC for chips, so there isn't any extra headroom to expand the supply into. Nvidia is making chips as fast as possible.

I, with some initial reluctance, started watching a few mainstream Korean Dramas/Shows a year and a half ago. I had been afraid they'd be similar to the few Japanese dramas which were always super hammy, but I was pleasantly surprised.

If many Americans are looking to foreign content nowadays then there is a good chance it's because of the same feeling I got from the Korean shows -- freshness. Having grown up in the US and seen at least 100 TV shows here, you eventually get burned out on the formula's that get used here. These foreign shows also have their own formulas that they rely on when building shows/stories, but their formulas born out of partially their own culture. So what you end up with is something that's very novel.

A good example I found was in the Crime/Detective genre. The US like's their "mystery" to be wrapped up in a single episode but I found that many Korean shows like to solve the current "mystery" in an episode and then start the next one in the last 15-20 minutes of the episode and pick up in the next episode. This creates a feeling (to me anyway) that there is a progressive storyline in the show. The US TV market has slowly progressed to more narrative driven shows as time has gone on in part thanks to the DVR.

I think the final key thing in this whole "More Americans watching foreign content" is simply that there is a nice backlog of really good shows overseas. If you pick a country like the UK or Korea, and you've never watched anything from there before, then you have at least 50 TV shows you could pick from that are award winning shows on par with stuff like The Wire, GoT, etc. Depending on how fast/slow you consume that content, you could easily have a few years worth of content to get through.

I guess Intel would say that everyone else must be benchmarking wrong then because the Linus Tech Tips video review on the Macs showed they beat the pants off similar "weight class" laptops running Intel and AMD chips. The only competitor that beat the M1s out was the beefy gaming laptop they included for comparison. They even had an XPS 2-in-1 that had a Intel 1165G7, which is only a minor step down compared to the 1185G7 that Intel is talking about in this article and the 65 still lost -- handly.

Additionally, the bit I find a little disingenuous is the battery life comparison. Apple's claims are way off, but its not like Intel has anything to stand on here. The Swift 5 they are comparing against the Air, has a 56Whr battery according to my googling. The Air has a 50Whr battery and the M1 MBP has a 58Whr battery. The benchmarking by LTT showed the M1 MBP could get nearly 20 hours of battery life compared to the XPS's 12hrs. Also it's been shown that the MBP and the Air are effectively the same system minus the thermal management system (ie: fans) between the two.

This slide deck from Intel just tells me they are running scared because Apple may successfully create a professional ARM ecosystem which could really hurt Intel (and AMD).

I really do think the US government needs to stop and consider the current state of chip fabs in the world. The US has been falling behind in its ability to source current gen chips. Intel has been struggling to move past 10nm and the only foundries that have been able to push them out to the market at reasonable rates are Samsung and TMSC. That's not to say they (Samsung/TSMC) aren't glossing over their good batch ratios (they might be), but even if their rates are like 3 good chips in every 5, that's still better than no chips for the market which is where Intel is right now.

The US has Global Foundries, Texas Instruments, and a handful of smaller fabs; but none of these fabs seems to be in the market of producing chips for the market at large (otherwise we wouldn't be seeing such shortages across the industry). If we aren't careful, we could find the rug pulled out from underneath us and feel like we've been catapulted 10-15 years into the past. We need to be careful about not creating govt. sanctioned/funded monopolies, but I think we need to take a long hard look and see if anything can be done to clear the road to make it easier for the US return to having comparable chip fabs that can supply the market domestically. (Other major countries should do so likewise)

In our current society, if you don't have chips, then you may as well be living as a caveman.

LCD and OLED screen technology, Samsung and LG are beating the pants off of everyone.
Chip fabrication, Samsung has one of the cutting edge chip fabs in the world, right next to TSMC in Taiwan.
Samsung has also consumed the TV, Phone, and home appliance sector in recent years.
Samsung is also making ground in the battery manufacturing sector as well.
Hyundai now owns one of the most advanced robotics companies (Boston Dynamics).
Oh and car companies, Hyundai and Kia,

They've also been exporting Korean Pop music and Korean television and movies to the world, but I don't consider that innovation.

I doubt Tesla will go into Trucking within the next 10 years. They have enough on their plates right now and everything I mentioned are things that are easy to sell right this second. Starting up a freighting sector would incur a whole different set of costs and require building up different types of logistics and systems. If FSD comes fully online, it's possible they could do it, but I rank it low. It has been a moonshot idea of my own, especially when paired with Starlink, but it'd really stress the company even more. Trying to do robotaxis will be difficult as is.

Something to keep in mind though is that we're not just talking about the potential car industry though. Here are a few other sectors to consider:

* Solar - This grew in Q4 and they plan to keep expanding on it and being one of a few companies offering roof tile based solar.
* Batteries - They will continue to scale this sector up for their cars, powerwall, and megapack. They could potentially become a supply chain provider for other companies as well though.
* Energy - They will be an energy provider through some of their solar plans and there is potential for an expansion on this through their battery tech but we haven't seen any guidance to suggest this yet.
* Automated Driving Software - Musk said in the Q4 call that they could see themselves licensing the Autopilot suite to other companies. This could be a huge source of revenue if they get it to Level 4.
* Robotaxi - Should be obvious.
* Electric Motors and drive train packages - While they haven't mentioned doing this, they could sell their whole drive train to other car makers.

My money is on the COBOL interpreters can only turn over transactions so fast on software that was written 40-50 years ago to run on IBM mainframes. It's one giant kludge underneath the hood.

Do you though? Truly?

A Level 5 system needs to be able to handle practically any scenario, but it probably isn't needed for everything. Take these 2 scenarios.

Scenario A:
Downtown Manhattan. I need to call a cab and have it pick me up at the corner of 3rd and 13th and then drop me off in front of Penn Station.

Scenario B:
Downtown Manhattan. I need to call a cab and have it pick me up at the corner of 3rd and 13th and then drive me to upstate New York and drop me off in front of a house on a private dirt road.

In Scenario A, a L4 system could probably be made to handle that just fine, hell even a L3 might be able to do it without much problem though it might be sketchy at points. You could probably doze off to sleep in a L4 in this scenario no problem.

In Scenario B, a L3 system could probably handle 90% of this but you'd probably not want to sleep. A L4 system would probably be able to handle all of this up till the private dirt road and then you might have to either give more guidance or take over.

The main point here is that we could have robotaxis with no drivers rolling around way before L5, it'll really just come down to knowing whether the current level of the system can handle the zone its operating in just fine. You only need L5 when you are trying to do more extreme stuff.

This made me think of something.

I've had an account on SomethingAwful's forums since the late 00s. One of the things I always noted over there back in those days compared to other places, was how much more constructive discussions could be found on their site. I had forgotten about this till you brought it up, but I realized the reason for this was because getting an account on the site costed a one-time ~$5 payment and then more money if you wanted features like search and other stuff. People were much more careful about how insane they went in certain parts of the site. People would still be crazy and would still get themselves permabanned (Toxxing, where you basically bet your account on something and if you lost you got permaed, is common), but you could just go make a new account and drop the money to do so.

So I'd argue you are definitely on to something with that point. If accounts on Twitter, Reddit, YouTube, etc. costed like $5 to make or $5 to enable the ability to post content (videos, comments, new posts, etc), then we might see measurable changes in behavior on the various platforms.

Man, its funny you bring this up because I was thinking the same thing last week after Trump and Parler were taken down. All the renewed talk about "free speech" and being silenced by Big Tech, was all only a few steps away from basically saying that we need to socialize Twitter, FB, YT, and apparently AWS now. It's like Left and Right are on a line, but that line is actually wrapped around a sphere and the right traveled so far East they came around the globe and crashed into Socialist Land. It's so bizzaro.

So on one hand I want to say "Space stuff is hard, failures are to be expected."

But on the other hand, SLS has consume ~$20B, making it way overbudget, and is nearly 5 years overdue at this point. These are also Space Shuttle engines which, I don't know the full history on the SLS program, but I would imagine they decided to go with because they are a tried and tested design and were chosen because it'd get the program in space faster...even if they cost something like 150 to 180M per engine.

Boeing also really needed a win on this. Between their 737-MAX screw up and the screw up on the Commercial crew capsule, which also uncovered more problems. This failure just feels like more egg on their face. To make matters worse, you have Lockheed doing the Orion capsule, another overbudget and overdue project, that has ran into problems where the whole capsule would have to be deconstructed to potentially fix it.

It really makes me wonder if there is any point to these traditional defense contractors anymore besides being black holes to dump tax payer dollars into.