Instead, content producers should GET paid per web request. And the payor should be the person making the web request. ISPs would just skim off the top.
The internet is more than just the web, and this is just a bizarre proposal. If you think bandwidth caps are bad, just wait until you can get charged per-connection fees.
I would classify neither HPE or Juniper's networking gear as "expensive buggy crap." Both of them produce fantastic equipment and have for decades.
Your job is not your life.
Agreed completely.
Your job is just a means to earn income to support your life.
Still with you.
Being "engaged" in your job means sacrificing part of your life for free to benefit the owners of the company.
Err... what? There's no "for free" involved, that's where the whole "earn income to support your life" bit comes in.
By all means, don't make your job your life--there are certainly better things out there. But being asked by your employer to give a fuck and put some effort in is certainly not a bridge too far.
However, if you are in that shitty position, you should not own a dog.
My wife and I figured that out during covid. We were both "essential" employees and by the time we took care of work and our two children, we had no time for anything else. Our dogs were living shitty lives and it killed us to do it but we rehomed them. I was upset about it but after it was done, I was even more upset that we hadn't done it sooner... because we let them live those shitty lives while we kept on keeping on trying to figure things out.
There is no sudden increase due to AI. There is a clear increase due to increased use of electronic equipment. Bitcoin, electric cars, etc. all contributed just as much as AI.
This is just plain incorrect.
The freaking summary points out that "Tech giants Microsoft, Google, and Amazon plan to spend $80 billion, $85 billion, and $100 billion respectively this year on AI infrastructure." That's a quarter trillion dollars worth of infrastructure (that has not a thing to do with bitcoin or EVs) which is going to require a shit ton of power.
On a more personal and anecdotal note, I work for a company that serves the power industry and one of our customers (a gas turbine manufacturer) will be increasing their capacity by more than 3x over the next five years--this is not speculative, they have already taken the orders, their capacity is booked through the end of the decade, and the reason is the datacenter boom. Most of our other customers are dealing with similar growth and their stated reasoning is the same.
If California joins the larger grid, it would most likely lower the electricity price in California
Almost certainly.
and also in the rest of the USA
This is far less likely, and in fact whoever they interconnect with probably ends up paying higher rates than they do today.
Mess with them: place triggering content on it like Tank Man, Taiwan-is-real-China meme, and Satanic Pooh Bear.
When they spot it just say, "It's a burner phone I bought on the street, I didn't put that on."
However, they'll still probably hold or harass you for a few days.
They won't hold or harass you. They'll simply say "Entry denied. Your flight home is at 2:00. Have a nice day." and your expensive vacation or business trip is now ended. Congratulations on the self-own.
They don't care. It's that simple; their strategy is all about maximizing short term profits and there is no interest in "next generations" or any other kind of market growth.
Notice the number of re-masters coming out recently and how songs you play on streaming services from the 80s and 90s from big artists don't sound how you remember them? That's because the artists re-record them due to the copyright coming to an end making minor changes from the original so they can refresh the copyright to that song and continue to make royalties from it.
This is... utterly untrue.
Reperforming the song is not going to change the end date of the copyright of the work by a single day. The copyright term was fixed when it was created (if a corporate work) or when the author dies (typically 70 years from that date) for anything for the last half century or so.
As an example: Bohemian Rhapsody was written by Freddie Mercury who died in 1991. The copyright is going to expire in 2061 and no amount of re-recording will change that.
Liberated from the rails at last! Free East Palestine!
From Pittsburg to the Lake!
Remember when the internet was the best communications tool ever devised by man instead of just another way to funnel advertising to you and a mechanism to control what you are allowed to speak about? I do, too.
A scientific paper featuring an AI-generated image of a rat with an oversized penis was retracted three days after publication
If O'Reilly ever publishes a book on e.g. ChatGPT, this needs to be the cover.
So no citation then?
[citation needed]
The idea that new build anything is cheaper than nuclear that has been operating for three decades or more is ridiculous on its face. If I'm wrong, please, by all means, direct me to the evidence thereof.
Sorry, you were talking about prices today and "still using" nuclear. Your comment re: subsidies suggests you are talking about Hinkley Point, which is not yet generating power and no subsidies for said power generation are being paid.
Existing nuclear is probably the cheapest energy in your grid. The "good news" at least for you is that almost all of it is scheduled for decommissioning by the end of the decade, so you will be able to see just how "expensive" it was when your rates go up as a result.
The trouble with being punctual is that nobody's there to appreciate it. -- Franklin P. Jones
