I can accept a little bit of bias in the press because it's truly difficult to be completely neutral.

But when you take a technology that is known to hallucinate and publish content with it... you're a cheap entertainment/fiction slop shop. Even opinions are supposed to be based on facts, so any argument that "it's just podcasts" is absurd and wrong.

I don't know if anyone had much respect for the Washington Post lately, but it should be gone now. If they had tested it before going live, they would have known. But they didn't because they don't care about anything besides money.

That wasn't possible. He lost a ton of money right out of the gate---half in 2 months.

His later losses were failed attempts to win it back.

Dude thought he was smarter than Wall Street. Now he's broke and in prison.

Maybe there is opportunity in this frigid lands.

But that opportunity can't be realized until they thaw a bit.

A refugee that is improverished and seeking a comfortable life simply won't have the resources to flourish in unfriendly territory. Of all the people who could preemptively seize these "great opportunities", immigrants are the least capable in the absence of structured support.

As always, the opportunities will be exploited when it is economically feasible to do so. Hoarding land today for speculative gains in the future isn't an option for immigrants. Your idea is 100% rich people shit.

How, exactly, is it cheating?

If the legacy users abandon the X platform because they prefer the branding or "the vibes", then it was fundamentally a mistake on Musk's part to change those things. Recognizing what consumers really want... isn't that the ENTIRE POINT of capitalism?

People seem to be profoundly opposed to the changes that accompanied the rebranding from Twitter to X, but they seem to have trouble choosing a successor platform en masse. Perhaps reviving the Twitter marks will resolve the issue.

I don't use any of those platforms, so the outcome doesn't matter much to me. I am firmly in favor of liberating unused IP, regardless of whether it's copyrights, patents, or trademarks. If someone can use it, they should be able to.

Still a murderous regime, just getting into bed with more profitable partners. They are motivated by greed and power, nothing else. They are not better people all of sudden; they are making better friends to move up in the world.

If private citizens were investing, that would be different. But fuck the concept of a royal family, and fuck this royal family in particular.

I don't have a fundamental problem with Netflix ownership. I'm not a fan of the idea, but it's just typical corporate money-grubbing.

The government can impose requirements to ensure the availability of the WBD catalog, either in streaming form or via other media. The US has imposed requirements on large-scale mergers in the past, so it would not be unusual here.

As for Hollywood and the theater industry, I don't particularly care about the impact. I liked going to movies as a kid, but I rarely do it anymore. Home theater tech has gotten very good, so only 3D or IMAX can offer a truly memorable experience.

The Paramount offer has substantial backing from Saudi Arabi and other Gulf nations.

This is the same royal family that funds Wahhabist groups. While some people are quick to point out that "not all Muslims are extremists", this is specifically an extreme branch of Islam with deeply anti-American sentiment.

We do not need to entangle this country with such a grotesque regime. We do not need our economic success to line their pockets.

Honestly, Cambria or even Aptos would have been much better choices than Calibri, if we're looking at domestic or Microsoft fonts.

Serifs in Cambria avoid ambiguity between I and l, which is more important than normal---clarity is more valuable when dealing with foreign words and names. It was designed to be equally readable digitally and in print.

Aptos is sans-serif but has a hooked end on the lower-L. Not quite as readable in print IMO. I'm not a fan of grotesque fonts for print. Doesn't matter much to me, but might be important for official documents.

It sounds like WBD rejected the offer for good reason.

Ellison is offering $72B for everything. Netflix is offering $72B for just studio and streaming assets.

So Ellison expects to get the whole cable network for free? Why would they even consider that?

Apparently there was a dispute over the value of their network... but it's surely greater than zero.

If I can't legally buy a particular piece of IP that was once available for consumer purchase, I should be legally allowed to procure a copy from any available source.

Why is the company allowed to claim any damages related to a product that they refuse to sell or otherwise distribute?

If you're willing to hire and fire junior developers, this level of performance is already within your risk envelope. If a project doesn't have the time or processes to catch basic errors, it's only getting senior staff assigned to it.

In 10 years, the AI model will be better, and it'll probably be the same price or less due to competition.

In contrast, the junior developers will also get better, but they'll double, triple, or even quadruple in price as they improve.

And, of course, the end goal is to replace most of the senior developers as well. Maybe it'll never replace all of them, but any number would be an incremental improvement that represents a significant savings.

They're bragging that you can switch between AI models freely when you're using their hardware. The model is replaceable and therefore fungible because of the hardware capabilities that they provide.

Depending on how much the industry and investors want to chase a flavor-of-the-month, that capability could be very appealing.

My employer doesn't operate in this space, so I don't know if that's a major selling point. But it never hurts to tout every advantage.

I call this approach the good ol' "this house will keep us warm as it burns down around us."

The keen vision and planning of corporate officers cannot be overstated.

Blessed be the shareholders.

They want everyone to use their AI tools.

Certain government, health care, and financial organizations are legally restricted from sharing data. Having worked in such a place before, they'll blanket ban AI rather than risk the unauthorized transmission of protected data. This functionality offers an alternative that they can accept.

If Microsoft wants their AI features to be adopted widely, they basically had no choice but to implement a local model. The fact that it's cheaper to use the customer's electricity is probably meaningless to them; they want to capture the userbase.