You are doing some massive misattribution. NVIDIA didn't run to AI, AI ran to NVIDIA as they had the optimum off the shelf hardware available for it. This was luck not NVIDIA strategy that blasted them to trillion dollar status. Also NVIDIA didn't "suddenly" ray-tracing. They've been dabbling in this for decades. I mean shit they published their paper on OptiX (their first raytracing engine) almost a decade before the first "RTX" card was released. Even back in 2010 they were playing with real time global illumination and trying to figure out how to make hardware to run it.

Because these days literally every network connected device gets its time via NTP and even the cheapest of oscillators means they are time synced. And any sizable UPS is network connected for management.

No. It's a physicist commenting on a physical problem on an electrical system. It happens that the root cause was software.

Your argument is about as much of a logical fallacy as any ad hominem attack. If a janitor pointed out this problem it would still be valid, and you'd still be a dick.

No it's software working exactly as intended to its functional design.

If you want more high quality information on the internet we should favour letting this guy publish and instead denying you access to a keyboard. We'd all be smarter for it if you closed your slashdot account.

None. Recycling painted large common steel metal isn't anywhere near as easy people think. Stripping down dealing with the paint or worse just burning it has an environmental problem on its own, and recycled steel in a way to remove the impurities and making it equal to virgin steel isn't actually quite as eco friendly either as there are several processes it needs to go through to remove impurities, not just melting it in an arc furnace.

That said, this isn't a waste. This is active reuse. Scuttling for artificial reefs creates a world of ecological benefits for marine life.

Not relevant. Paint is present in all vessels which have been sunk and we have evidence that they turn into vibrant artificial reefs with a positive ecological impact.

The more important thing here is the sheer size of the vessel, it's big so it needs to be sunk somewhere deep for it to be a functional diving reef. Sinking an artificial reef too close to the surface exposes divers to more severe water surge. That's usually fine in a big open area but can be incredibly dangerous in an enclosed space for anyone looking to penetrate, and given the size of the ship there will definitely be people looking to do that.

Speaking of making an arse of yourself did you just suggest that 130 - 55 = 5? I think it's time for you to go back to school.

No, rec divers could have explored the entire upper deck. This is common with a lot of artificial reefs because boats are in fact quite big. And before you talk about the 18m limit for the basic open water certification, note that only a handful of the world's divable ship wreaks, including artificial reefs are at that depth. Virtually anyone interested in ship wreak diving will have done an advanced course (of which wreak diving is one of the specialities you can choose), i.e. no one going into a wreak is limited to 18m.

He deserves a lot of credit for putting NVIDIA where it is, but I'm just saying AI was not the strategy. The strategy started years ago with CUDA, but at the time no one anticipated the rise of AI. The CUDA move was strategic but for the wrong reasons, ... hence ... lucky.

NVIDIA's shareholders, clearly.

And what has your aggregated uptime stat been? I hope you were going for a funny, because if you really thought that a point in time check is in any way relevant than you have no business being anywhere near IT infrastructure.

My self hosted email is also currently up. It was down for 2 days last month though due to cable works in our street. You probably didn't hear about it because it didn't make the Slashdot front page.

It absolutely was the point. My sole point was that the comparison between banks and airlines was asinine, and that if the OP was looking to make a comparison he should have used a better industry to do so as the risk profile fundamentally influences the basis for comparison.

And that is my point as well. There is *NO* risk being accepted by United. They provide a service in exchange for money. They are not operating the AI, they are not making the decision to use AI, they are not validating the AI, all they do is let passengers on a plane who have paid and filled out the documents correctly.

THAT IS THE POINT. The whole reasoning United presents is stupid, as is the comparison to banking.

False. Banks are not open portals, they are closed systems and they legally carry risk and liability of what happens within their systems. This is codified in law. Incidentally this has nothing to do with AI. Banks have strict policies against any sharing of account information or using someone else's account from a human point of view as well. This is why they have a power-of-attorney process in place. On the flip side United has no policy against me handing you my credit card and passport and asking you to book me a flight.

No, it's drink. And incidentally one that causes a dopamine release. Food and sustenance involve more than just providing base nutrients. They play an important role in mental health. But I get it, fuck poor people. They are miserable and we should do our best to make them more miserable because they are poor and thus we should micromanage their lives. Maybe if we work hard enough they'll kill themselves, eyh comrade?

Two things. 1. His backing of GPU compute at the time AI was not a word in the common lexicon put the company in a lucky position. This wasn't 4D strategy. The value of NVIDIA today has a lot more to do with luck than genius. He has been at the helm of a company mostly iterating a product for a decade now. He has charisma but you can find that all over the place.

2. You can't unfuck that which has been fucked. The problem is the conflict of interest, which is precisely why managers (especially at that level) have disclosure requirements. Had he disclosed the relationships and allowed a conflict of interest management process to play out he may not have been asked to step down. That is the real problem for the board right now. It's not that they couldn't have managed the personnel issues, it's that Huang actively prevented it. Fun fact Bernard Looney (CEO of bp) was a well known company playboy who had quite a few relationships on his way to CEO. It was when it was discovered he had an undisclosed relationship, one he tried to hide that the board fired him 2 days later (and he lost 35million pounds in the process, I don't think there's a hooker in the world who can charge those rates).

The thing is it was a past external problem not within the direct control of the person involved. The legal risk doesn't disappear by getting rid of Huang for this, and again there's no breach of law, ethics, or otherwise for getting played by a spy providing you didn't do anything illegal.

Now if on the other hand Huang did something materially illegal as part of the relationship then there's a very serious issue.

Maybe, maybe not. Point remains CEOs do very much get fired for this and worth noting that the board is meeting right now on this singular topic.