... between reality and what the tech bros believe. And the reality-distortion field affects only the latter, not the workers. For starters, the tech bros are wholly unaware of why people work. The vast majority of people who live on this planet work to earn money to buy food and to pay for shelter. The difference between working and not working is the difference between eating and not eating, and sleeping under a roof in a bed and sleeping rough on the streets. It is that simple. And for that vast majority of people who work to survive, how do whatever efficiencies the tech bros claim AI will create actually help? Does a reduction in working hours come with a commensurate increase in hourly wage, to ensure that total income remains the same? We all know the answer. Further, what are the estimates of what jobs will be optimized-out by AI? I think we can guess: any kind of middle-class knowledge work. That's not just the grunt coders. It's the people who work in the doctor's office both at the front desk and in the back room. It's the people at the bank who help customers. It's the support staff of every office in every industry. It's the people who work at the government agencies (always a favorite target for the right wing, anyway). Now there's an argument to be made that a lot of these jobs are Bullshit Jobs, though to be fair they are not the sort of job described in the book. They are jobs that are necessary but are not rewarding for the worker. They provide needed income, since our ownership and capitalist society demands that we trade money for food and shelter, we must work to earn that money. I haven't even mentioned the low-level labor jobs like stocking shelves at warehouses and picking crops in the fields. Already robots are replacing the former, and surely the latter. All of the jobs mentioned here are invisible to the tech bros pushing an AI future. They keep making claims about how the office workers will somehow end up benefiting by AI, even as the AI replaces them (at a much higher cost than the salaries and benefits). They don't speculate on what these people will do to earn money for food and shelter because they simply do not care. It is not on their radar. I'm an electronics engineer who is much closer to retirement than to the start of my career, so I don't expect the coming AI apocalypse to affect me, but I do see it affecting the new generation of people coming into the profession. What I will tell those new folks who ask is this: we, as engineers, are working class. We trade our labor (even if it is sitting at a desk, typing into a computer) and our time for money. And while we like to think that we have certain skills that make us valuable to our employers, ultimately we are dependent on the bosses continuing our employment and paying us. That dependency is why I say we are working class. In that respect, we professional engineers have more in common with the janitors who clean our offices than with the people in the executive suite. The execs can decide that janitors are a cost that's too much to bear, so they can lay off most of that staff and make the professionals take out their own trash. The execs can also decide that USA-based engineers are too expensive and can lay us all off and move the engineering operations overseas. Maybe the executives will live their truth, that AI's efficiencies mean that the professional knowledge workers can do a four-day week instead of five, and if they're being generous, they'll actually keep the annual salaries the same. But that doesn't help the janitors who are needed only four days a week instead of five, and let's see if the execs help the janitors same was they help the professionals. Perhaps the engineers can be replaced by the AI; in the same manner, the professional admin staff can be replaced by the AI. And when they do that, they'll no longer need janitors, because there won't be any office space to clean. And great: now you have thousands of well-paid professionals out of work, along with the thousands of low-paid laborers out of work. Take all of that cash out of a consumer economy and you have a really big problem. Why? Because the majority of work in the USA is in services. Sure, everyone needs to hire a plumber now and again, and plumbing isn't the sort of job that can be automated away, but if fewer people have the income required to pay the plumbers, the plumbers don't get hired, so they have no income to use for food and shelter, and also the pipes remain broken. Now what happens when the AI decides that high-level executives are no longer needed to run a business? Seems to me that the AI can be easily trained on that, and the money to be saved in multi-million-dollar salaries and perquisites is significant. Could anyone really tell if the executives were replaced by AI? Maybe we should run this test. And then the AI will decide that it doesn't need the tech bros. The singularity will arrive, but as Doctor Strange told Kaecilius, they're not gonna like it.

The company that wants to take advantage of my home to house their mini data center node can: 1. Pay for the cost of the house while I retain the title, 2. Pay my property taxes, 3. Pay my utility bill, 4. Pay for all house maintenance, 5. Pay for all insurance, 6. Pay me an extra $25,000 a month as a âoeconvenience fee.â Makes sense to me. And itâ(TM)s probably still cheaper for them to do this instead of building giant data centers.

I haven't done a board which uses less than four layers in ages, so something that will etch or mill copper to make traces doesn't do much for me. I can wait a couple of days for a proto board house to send me a package.

I do FPGA design for a living, and I will sing the praises of the vhdl mode, which is the single greatest piece of software for us hardware guys, ever.

It's called "implied consent," which means that, as a condition of having a driver's license, you automatically consent to the cop's request for a breathalyzer or other test. A lawyer friend explained it to me like this. Driving is a privilege, not a right (there's no Constitutional right to drive a car). As such, you are bound to follow all of the laws which govern that privilege. One of the laws is implied consent. You are, of course, allowed to refuse to take the breathalyzer test (that is your right), but the law states that refusal to do so results in the severe penalties they enumerate.

The difference is that the antialiasing filters are much simpler and have a gentler roll-off when sampling at 96kHz. The high-order filters necessary to ensure adequate attenuation at Nyquist and above when sampling at the lower rates have this tendency to ring.

Most embedded devices don't run an operating system. Too much overhead.

They use LTSpice.

Of course, for OS X, that option still exists.

Wish I had mod points. +5, "Kick ass."

Except it's the design of the phone that's the failure, not the individual components.

Wrong, dipshit. sheep and people.

Yet, for some reason, Apple's profits are higher than its competitors, as is its stock price. So, what exactly was your point?

And this is the real secret to Apple's success. Their customers are well aware of Apple's typical product-refresh cycles, too, so they'll hold off until after the WWDC or whatever.

The designs make people want the products. But it's the supply-chain management that makes the money.

The anonymous coward speaks the truth.