At least the damn thing apologized. That's pretty impressive. Though not quite what we want from AI.

It's not like it's the first time either. Here they caught a lady taking a wee behind a parked car. They did blur her face though...

It's doable, if he gets a couple of Chinese engineers to help. Designing and building factories is an art in itself, one we've largely lost in the West. But in China, they know how to set up an automated factory, producing goods to the right tolerances, and applying automated QA. They do that pretty much every day.

MacOS runs on non-Apple bare metal as well: Hackintosh. And it runs very well. I built a top end "Mac" for a fraction of what Apple would have charged for similar performance. The only issue is that keeping the OS and software up to date can be a major PITA.

No kidding. But "si vis pacem para bellum". Many nations aspire to lasting peace, but as it turns out there's always some ambitious a-hole who thinks their neighbour's land is there for the taking.

The way to do it is to drum up hype for some fantastic product or service, but disclose enough uncertainties to make it a long shot. With enough hype, enough buzzwords and slick videos, and a few big ticket celebs to endorse your launch, investors will still come. They figure it as a high risk/high reward deal, they have several on the go and hope that one or two of them will pay off to make up for all the others that fail. When your business inevitably fails, you'll have extracted enough money for yourself from it (there's several ways), and your investors will chalk it up as just another loss on something they didn;t do sufficient due diligence on.

Outright lying about your product though... that's bad enough and opens you up to prosecution. But lying about the numbers? That is a big no-no... They will come after you for that, with a vengeance.

"According to the video, officials are not required to disclose what exactly the charges are or who has brought them until the initial investigation is complete under Italian law. "

Then why does the title say he's being charged for reviewing games?

Those have already been deployed. They are flown to the front by the operator, who will in most cases also designate the target, after which the drone will engage it autonomously. Jamming is most effective at close range, so that's when you want the AI to take over.

The dollar being the reserve currency of choice is one thing, what really matters is that oil is traded around the world in dollars. That effectively expands the dollar economy by trillions, and is what allows more dollars to be printed without affecting inflation. Once countries stop selling or paying for oil in dollars, that's when the currency will crash and burn for real.

Dude, my claim isn't over some unknowable information lost to time; you can look at old game catalogues and gaming magazines and they have the prices right there.

Here's SSI's 1984 catalogue:
https://archive.org/details/Re...

Look at the price list for EA and all its companies from 1987:
https://archive.org/details/Re...

 

Productivity did soar, by rather quite a bit. But companies did not use that increase in productivity to offer the same stuff with fewer employees, they used it to offer ever more complex products and services, while keeping them affordable.

Industrialism has added decades to the average human lifespan. We shouldn't be blind to the ill effects, and be open to improving things, but let's not focus on only the downsides.

I've been gaming since the early 80's and games are so much cheaper now than they used to be. I remember spending $39.95-59.95 in the late 80's/early 90's, which would be over $100 now adjusted for inflation. And these weren't huge releases, just run-of-the-mill games.

Musk certainly is overly optimistic regarding timelines, but "move fast and break things" (for lack of a better term) has been proven to work in space, by SpaceX. It gave us a launch system that was cheap to develop and cheap to operate. Everyone in the business was laughing at Musk for keeping "breaking things" and crashing rockets while trying to land one. Then he did. And got good at it. Now they only make the news when one of their (many many) boosters fails to make a soft landing.

As for Starship, I've no idea what kind of data they have and how they are acting on it, but from a distance it does look like there are some major problems to overcome, and making a few changes before sending up another one might not be the right approach. The idea about "move fast and break things" is not to design and test until you are 99% sure, you spend a lot less effort in getting to 90%, and hoping that a failure will point to the error(s) you missed. But Starship smells like it's at 70% right now (or whatever the number are, for illustrative purposes only)

Then why the eye-wateringly high bills for SLS and Starliner? They got to build on the exact same body of knowledge available to SpaceX.