Don: Why shouldn't we? We're the winner. We won.

He's giving himself prizes now.

nuf sed

general inequality because it factors in all the levels, not just specific boundaries.

Re: "because they needed to free funds for building data centers."

Yes, for some co's that's certainly the case. But it's not because "bots took jobs", but rather "bots need funds".

Correction: "laid off"

Almost nobody actually laid of employees because of AI, that was just an excuse to downsize in slow markets. If sales were growing, the same number of employees could do more work via bots such that they wouldn't actually reduce head-count. The proper business move under gained efficiency in a normal economy is to chase market share, not lay off.

Smells like ... recession.

(But finally I can buy PC parts.)

with the Iran war, [Trump has inadvertently] done as much for renewables as EV subsidies ever did !

Maybe God does work in mysterious ways. I thought She sent him as a substitute for a locusts to punish us for mistreating the planet, but maybe Don's dual-purpose. She's good!

Yeah well, we can't all be a person who doesn't understand how things work. Kudos to you for being simple minded!

" The Kathmandu Post"

Ah we don't to pay for journalism, says a planet of suckers

"It looks like you're trying to pull an Apollo 13, would you like some help with that?"

"My God, it's full of bugs!"

Oh, that's pretty neat. Microsoft is definitely the right level to address this at - they already have permission to enumerate the HW, own the hardware and software infra to tackle this, enjoy economy of scale other players are not privvy too, and can deliver a solution in a vendor agnostic way. Thanks for the heads up. It's the right thing to happen.

Of course there are. Tragedy of the commons. My point is that no single entity is likely to absorb the costs unless they're already enjoying economy of scale advantages and there are business experience/optic benefits to doing so. The poster above you pointed out that Microsoft seems to be addressing this, which makes a lot more sense to me than doing it at the 3d HW vendor level.

Sure, but many people would opt in, especially if you explained that they would benefit.

Maybe. Maybe not. Before committing to developing such a thing, you'd have to at least do some research and analysis to find out if that's true and how the likely opt in/out ratios would impact the business case. Remember, this is hosting content in a daemon on your machine .. I think that'd a non-starter for a lot of people, despite the upside of shorter shader updates. (I'm not super up on what the US ISP market/landscape is like these days, but are not data caps still a thing on many plans there? I get the sense that hosting off a home line is not only a performance concern but a concern with actual possible financial ramifications.)

It can't be only when the game is open - this is when gamers are most sensitive to their computers doing other work, and the available of such a network would be far more limited.