"There is a risk of a correction, a market correction, if expectations about AI gains in productivity and profitability are not realised,"

So if the economy isn't destroyed by AI taking everyone's job, it will be destroyed by AI NOT taking everyone's job.

The mockery is (hopefully) aimed at the quacks who try to profit off the desperation of people with no other options and not those who are deceived by them.

Credit card companies base their rates on the risk that you will default. If you are too risky and they can't raise the rates, they'll just drop you and cancel your card.
Alternatives include "payday loans" (which can have APRs of around 400%) and of course your friendly neighborhood loan shark. And I'm sure the silicon valley oligarchs are ready to go with some kind of fintech crypto-usury scam.

Quite sure. A simplified example: If there are 9 people in the US, and their incomes are $2, $4, $5, $5, $5, $9, $12, $28 and $100, the median income is $5 (the middle value in the ordered list) and the mean is $18.89. It doesn't take very many billionaires to push the mean higher than the median.

>> There are 133 million households in the USA. Now divide. That works out to $75,000 per household per year in government spending. The US median household income is $83,000.

You are comparing mean (simple average) spending with median income. Mean income is higher than median income due to income inequality.

Remember 25 years ago when self-absorbed assholes would walk around with bluetooth headsets having a loud conversation with someone while in line at the grocery store? Get ready for the even more annoying AI version of that.

That is the question few ask (and fewer try to answer). Even if human authors continue to publish new content, it is increasingly diluted by all the AI generated content out there (which becomes the training data for future versions of the AI models; rinse & repeat). Unless new AI models use a totally different way of obtaining/generating training data, they will never be any smarter than they are right now (and will likely get dumber).

This question has already been answered. Learn how to use the search.

That works fine for receiving; less so for sending. I'm hoping the new feature will have an easy pull-down to select which email address you are sending from without logging out and back in.

>>every time there's a technology that changes how art is made (cameras, digital painting, 3d rendering, even pre-made pigments), there are a group of artists who flip their shit and say that the new technology is going to kill creativity and ruin art as we know it

Except those pigments weren't made by grinding up existing paintings. That's the difference.

Likely they are hiring more engineers to the fix the "vibe coding" mistakes made by managers with AI tools.

______ Derangement Syndrome = "I can't defend my illogical position, so I'll question the motives of the critic"

Lots of capitalist things operate on a zero-pricing model (ad-based, freemium upsell, etc).

Netflix doesn't want CNN (or any of the cable channels like Discovery) so they will be spun off into their own company if the Netflix deal goes through. Ellison/Paramount could still end up owning CNN even if Netflix wins their bid; they will just have to pay fair price for it instead of getting it thrown in for free with WB/HBO.

>>Why a single location? Do you want one movie theater in town?

A movie theater has a limited number of screens and showings; a streamer does not.

A better analogy would be a video rental store. Would you prefer that each studio had it's own rental outlets and you had to drive around town and have multiple membership cards if you wanted to rent movies from different studios? You can still have competition (Blockbuster, Hollywood Video, mom & pops, etc) but each would have the ability to show content from any studio.