Sure, but putting storage online is cheaper both initially and ongoing than putting a bunch of GPGPU online, and in both power consumption and dollars. It can take up just as much space but use an order of magnitude less electricity, therefore be quieter, and have no one care

It might actually turn out good for IBM if the bubble pops sooner than later. Then they get to look smart for not participating when all the AI stocks (and the stocks of any other company that bet big) slump.

IBM has been more of a services company than a hardware company for decades, it's true. And yet, they are still a hardware company despite that, and their hardware is supposed to back up their services.

In fact if any politician caused the Internet boom it was Al Gore

"the race to AGI is of the same National Security importance as the race to be first for the Atomic Bomb.

Whomever reaches that goal first ( assuming it is reachable at all ) will enjoy an enormous advantage
over everyone else."

Or they just get burned for fuel first

Same for modern Christianity, despite women doing most of the reading of the religious works in the household at the beginning.

Faltered is right. Isn't IBM a hardware company among other things? Why didn't they have a hardware product to offer customers who wanted to experiment with throwing away money?

It's so sad that your comment got a 5 despite your conclusion, which wasn't supported by the body.

They are literally advocating for democracy, which prompted you to cry communism.

I don't care about the percentage basis, it doesn't detract from the point. What matters is where the bulk of the dollars are going, and they are going to a small number of people who have the most money. The fact that capital accrues capital is a bug, not a feature.

I don't want to diminish the accomplishment; that seems like a very cool dataset and probably one that was really fiddly to pull together; but, if you are talking single-neuron resolution; I am curious about whether you can still call an individual sample "the human brainstem" rather than "a human brainstem" and what comparative purposes you can use it for without running into trouble with cases where there are multiple ways for a brainstem to be adequately healthy, so long as certain requirements are met, so you'll need considerably more samples to draw useful inferences about exactly what the problem abnormality is.

Same sort of thing as when "sequencing the human genome" was a big project. Obviously a major exercise in gene sequencing and a basis for situating subsequent sequencing operations; but once you start talking detail there isn't 'the human genome'; literally everyone has one; and it turns out that different differences matter or don't at radically different levels.

Presumably the methods used to do it once will be helpful in doing it more often in the future; but I'll be curious what we discover about the balance of 'normalcy' vs. some relatively subtle and confusing combination of surprisingly variable ways to have a brainstem that seems to work just fine along with surprisingly subtle, no ghastly big lesions, ways to have one that ends up being totally dodgy.

I find "NOTE: Experiences vary by region." to be a bad sign for something that would be so trivial for MS to alter the behavior of; and where they are obviously not earnestly making improvements that were previously impossible but grudgingly rolling back bullshit they thought they could get away with.

Probably means good news for users in the EU; same way they get left out of some of the most egregiously bullshit 'AI' stuff; may help EDU and enterprise; but I'm guessing that it's no promises for less favored users.

Windows search used to be kind of OK. Never as good as Everything, but Everything didn't exist for most of history. But they really fucked it up somewhere along the line, which I didn't notice because I was using Everything, and now it's very challenging to construct a complex search without learning a whole new language of keywords.

If they keep the facilities small enough then you might be right, but then they miss out on economies of scale. They will still need some nurses in order to put up the semblance of providing health care in the process, not in the facilities perhaps, but around them.

The top shareholders and the executives are. Hence Luigi.

The insurers are motivated to drive health care costs up by the so-called affordable care act, which caps their profits at a percentage of those costs. Since they're not the ones paying the bills, the insured are (and via APTC, the government is, which means the taxpayers are) they want those costs to go up because they get to collect more profit. You need to not ignore reality if you want it to make sense.