I'll start by saying I've never owned a console from Microsoft or Sony. I've seen them, I've seen game demos in stores, etc, but I've never owned one.

To me as one random consumer I fail to see the drive to upgrade from PS4 to PS5, or from the previous XBox to the newest. The games don't look that different. For that matter, it doesn't seem that the two consoles are really offering much difference from each other either. Both consoles are primarily hawking the newest Quake look-alike, or the latest professional (or college) sports titles. I see very few games for either that don't fit into one of those categories.

In other words my argument here is that they have sold to their core market already, and the demand has dissolved for the rest of the public. Even if we ignore the cost, the benefit is no longer clear to many people. Why upgrade to the newest console, other than to say you have it?

About 25 years ago, I was at a bbq where I spent the evening chatting with this guy named Lars Knoll. Even though I was busting my butt with my team to develop the Opera for Linux web browser, this guy had been hired by TrollTech after he had developed something called Konquerer which was becoming the default HTML rendering engine in the KDE project. He wrote the whole thing on top of the KDE libraries which were painfully slow. He rendered text and for controls using the KDE objects which were rarely more than Qt objects with a little KDE specific stuff on top. I remember thinking "there's no point thinking much about this because there's no chance it could compete with a real browser like Opera".

Shortly after, I was in Cupertino sitting across from a strange product manager type. His name was Tim Cooke. We were discussing developing the default web engine for this new Mac OS X project which was coming along. We would have to develop for Carbon because Apple hadn't implemented Objective C++ yet and we were a C++ shop and we couldn't use half the developers in the company to make a C abstraction layer for Cocoa. We came to an agreement and Apple sent us a palette full of the latest G4 macs and screens. I remember fighting over the 21" screens like children. We had an idiot project manager who insisted that we implement the browser the way Adobe was demanding. It didn't matter that we were pretty much the "experts" on making cross platform embedded browser engines. He was like "Adobe said it... it must be done this way... they are gods".

Well long story short, while we were implementing a crap Carbon based browser engine using crap tools from Metrowerks instead of the good Apple tools (which weren't that good yet). Apple put together a team which abstracted the KDE libraries and built bindings to C and then Objective-C/Cocoa. And they abstracted out everything that was platform specific otherwise from KHTML (Konquerer's underlying html widget) and wrapped it in a Cocoa wrapper and a Carbon wrapper and shipped it as Webkit and Safari. And man did it suck.

Who would have ever imagined that Lars Knoll's half assed KDE web browser would have eventually become the defacto Web standard and the default web browsing engine in every operating system... including Windows... except the strange 5 user corner case operating systems.

Don't bash a project like this. It has value. I immediately considered that I have had many cases in recent times where it could have been of value to me. That said, I wouldn't run a C based web browser engine ever. It's not that you can't write a good web browser in C. It's just that it's the wrong tool for the job. At 160,000 lines, it's a small job to port to something else. When JavaScript evolves into a JIT and the JS runtime is thunking the heck out of the DOM, then it's pretty much no longer an option. Oh, and someone will think it's a good idea to implement proper form controls. That's an insanely massive project, especially when adding WebGL as well. If this browser core catches on, which unfortunately due to the license, I don't expect it will, it will likely be 5 million lines of code almost overnight.

Yeh, no.

Three major events started "trade wars" and the government propaganda anti-China rhetoric.

1) 5G happened and Huawai was the only company with a full 5G implementation including millimeter wave and SA mode on release. Ericsson was 2-3 years behind. Nokia was 6. Huawei could deliver on day 1 and they cost much less because neither Sweden or Finland are ... well, they are terrible at competing. They simply expected China wouldn't be in the competition because... Why would they be. So, they were confused because they never had to actually compete against a company who actually did a good job.

Keep in mind, by now, nearly $2 trillion has been spent building 5G networks. Money to Sweden and Nokia recirculates. To China, it's horded and weakens the US.

2) Apple evaluated CXMT as RAM suppliers and YMTC and certified them as good enough for Apple to trust in their products and with their reputation. The US slammed the door shut on that. They are still making up excuses for why as there were no legitimate ones except that if those two companies get a foothold, the entire world semiconductor commodity trading market would collapse. As a result, non-Chinese companies can't legally license their tech to CXMT or YMTC so those companies operate patent free. But other companies have to pay license for their tech. This allows CXMT and YMTC to sell RAM and Flash for half the price. If the US lifts sanctions, in 3 years or less, Samsung, SK Hynix, and Micron could be considering bankruptcy of their RAM divisions and CXMT could aggressively dump RAM to collapse the value of the patents.

3) China focused on brands. Before Chinese brands happened, buying expensive Chinese products was a high risk, Huawei, Xiaomi and others started legitimizing Chinese premium brands. This made it so buying an $80k Chinese car was ok because it wasn't cheap Chinese no name crap.

The money floods to China and they invest in One China by spending obsessively on education and R&D. They raised 800 million people out of poverty so far. They know every yuan spent in China is worth it. They invest massively in Silk Road because they don't think 4 years at a time. Building infrastructure across Asia, South America and Africa will pay them back massively.

The one thing which will cause China's greatest growth will be when they start opening Chinese universities to the masses. It will be way bigger than any other Silk Road initiative. And it will devastate the US economy. The US cannot afford to lose access to the world's top talent and can't afford to lose control of who gets an education and who doesn't.

Did you know that China's defense against American anti-Chinese propaganda is simple pro-China marketing? Which do you think is working better long term globally?

There are people who see what's happening and prepares for the changes. There are fools who make idiotic comments like yours.

I can't recall the last time I ate a burger at McDonald's that tasted better than the wrapper it was served in. A while ago I tried the McRib as well and was left wishing it had stayed in the 90s.

It's possible that this article is less than honest on the matter, but it certainly appears that Trump had a license in NY issued at least as recently as 2012 .

Where are all the stories about all these good cops referring the bad cops to the DA for charges & testifying against them? These should be numerous, considering how many members of law enforcement are out there.

He would only ask it for things that result in an improved situation for him, personally. There is nothing at all for him to gain by seeing lower gas prices. He hasn't bought gas himself in many years - and will never have a reason to buy gas again for the rest of his life - so the price is completely irrelevant to him. If the price fell and the MAGA party lost part of congress he would still blame it on other people. If the price stays the same and the MAGA party loses part of congress he'll blame that on other people as well.

It's easy to reach that conclusion if you have never been active in a party. The democratic party does have a good local ground game that is run by volunteers who actually have beliefs and principles. The problem is that at the end of the day the candidate who wins in the one who can pull in the most money, and that's true no matter what. Where do you see a situation where an independent candidate can pull in enough money to win an election? The message is important, but getting the message out is what brings in votes. Just as the democrats need a more coherent message than just "we're not Trump", an independent needs a better message than just "I'm not a democrat or a republican" - and they need backing in order to get that message out.

There have been some democratic candidates who have been able to get some local traction without taking special interest money, but that's only possible if they had a large war chest of money ready before they announced their candidacy. An independent would face the same challenge.

Some people seem surprised by the glasses and how they can be used in perverse ways. These people seem to have forgotten what the original aim of facebook was. The website itself started as a way for "bros" - who would have been called incels had the term existed then - to trade pics of women from their campus. How many of those pictures do we think were taken with consent? Even if they were taken in public they still could have been creepy. This is just the same mindset, applied to technology that didn't exist at this scale in the early 2000s.

No one is forcing him to spend money he doesn't have to produce a product no one will pay for.

He has irresponsibly played a game and even helped make the rules. Now he realizes other people are better at it than he is, but he keeps spending borrowed money for 'pay to play' and all the other players except openai (his twin) are figuring out how to play for much less.

His biggest competition are the bastards at companies like Alibaba, Microsoft, and Google who actually have products, services, and paying customers who will stick with them even if their AI is a generation or three behind.

See, it's perfectly ok to slow down. The others have done it. But they cheated... They actually had business plans.

Should these companies complain about their only paying customers?

Could be that they are treating it more akin to a base load power plant. For solar or wind, the costs go way up, due to having over provisioning and battery storage. This is a 615 MW plant. Even at a $6 billion investment, that's $10/MW for baseload power, so pretty cheap.

Biochemist here. I've done genomics, I've done proteomics, I have customers in diagnostic medicine currently. My PhD was on protein-protein interactions, which is a big part of how our immune system works.

A lot of people are quick to jump on the fact that the Theranos system didn't work, and many others claim that it was impossible and never could have worked. While indeed their system didn't work, that doesn't at all disqualify the principle.

For one case study of how far we've come in recent times I point to genomics. The first draft of the human genome took more than a decade start to finish and cost over $1B. Now we can sequence full human genomes on a commercial scale for $500 or less, and it's done in less than a week with far better resolution than the first draft.

From genomics we went to proteomics; classifying proteins in a organism instead of just genes. This tells us more about what cells are doing (although transcriptomics can bridge the gap to a certain extent). Proteins are often better disease markers than genes as well for a similar reason. When proteomics started getting off the ground we were cataloging proteins from large amounts of cellular extract. Now we can catalog and in some cases quantify proteins from individual cells. We can also use protein staining and imaging mass spec to show which cells from a biopsy are expressing aberrant proteins (again as disease markers); we've reached a point where we can do this in real time on live tissue.

One of the biggest faults in the Theranos system was in the fact that blood is not the best serum for disease markers. Yes there are markers in there but not everything goes in there, and not always in quantities that are easy to observe. Blood is great because of how much is in there but lots is missed there as well.

I think you two are both correct here. The company was mostly funded by very wealthy investors, those folks lost money and are getting their pounds of flesh back by way of seeing her rot in jail. As you point out there were also actual patients who had tests ran (uncertain now what tests, where, by whom) and received crap results; those people of course are getting nothing back because they don't have enough money to be considered worth anything in the courts - even if they died as a result.