The situation you described is called "constructive dismissal". If the employer changes the job without your input you can still be fired but they must pay unemployment. Amazon tried to avoid that cost, maybe illegally, but making up some bullshit. If it weren't this way every two bit crook would hire people, get them used to the salary, then drop it so the employee was stuck working for slightly less than they need to survive knowing that they can't afford a week off to find new work. That's just slavery, basically. Amazon tried to do slavery and got caught. I'm not feeling bad that they're having a bad day

You seem to be proposing the novel idea that competition is possible in the current climate, or am I mistaken?

You are aware that it's not legally permissible to actually compete with the current monopolists as things stand, right?

The only difference with Net Neutrality is that the monopolists can't screw us on a per domain basis.

The game is over, they won. The only question now is WHAT they won.

Where do you live?

It surprises me. Local news is a cesspool of local criminal influence where I live.

Are people really this poor? Can't you afford a Walmart $10 antenna instead of a $5 homebrew one with half the performance? Really? I mean, seriously? How? What? Why?

Get a job, or move away, or SOMETHING! Don't you like the flavor of food? Why would you live in place like that? Obviously you are literate. That's how you posted this. By reading words, and then writing them. Where I'm from that means $15/hr automatically unless you're a crack addict. Crack addicts only get $12/hr, and that means it's slightly more minutes per antenna of labor. They can still afford antennas for their squats and hovels.

Just tell your mom you're sorry, find a real job, and fly her out once you get your first paycheck.

HD quality is shit. We live in a 4k/UHD world now, and I wouldn't pay a nickel for old-timey DVD/HD quality garbage. Most phones are capable of so much more, but our providers think the "good old days" are "good enough." Paying for DVD quality is like paying to watch a Charlie Chaplin film projected through a potato camera. No thanks.

This was sarcasm, right?

The internet is as good as books are. Sure, sometimes they're Mein Kampf and that get's a lot of attention...but the rest of the library is pretty neat too.

I also would have expected it before now, but draconian copyright laws and other factors prohibited it. Shouldn't we celebrate the dawning of an era in which those without the means can appreciate the work of a Grand Master in his peak?

Seeing, and being influenced by this simple thing, may be the root cause of the next Van Gogh's emergence. It is a good thing, and more publicity only makes it a better thing.

Aren't they claiming that? Are you sure? Have you ever actually met an "average" person? Have you been to Walmart, or worked in a place where people labor with heavy tools and sweat all day? When men used shovels and hammers to build the place where you live where were you?

Many people would say that seeing a photo is as good as seeing the actual painting. I know those people, personally. I like them, they're nice. The author was warning them, not people like you. Trust me, it's for the best that they be taught. It's far more important that they learn new things, than it is that you never read a sentence you consider obvious. The lives of those people directly affect yours, whether you're aware of it or not. In fact, they're changing the face of the world by virtue of being numerous and loud.

The entire anti-intelligentsia movement is a response to posts like this, and it's killing the world. People who aren't as bright, wordy, or worldy as you are are not less important than you are. The very idea that they aren't worthy of mention, or even a simple explanation is a shameful thing. I hope that you feel bad about having done it and learn, before they come to tear down the house they built you.

Yes, because it is. Shared resources make things like machine learning, speech recognition, and image recognition much cheaper at scale. There are a ton of products doing it this way already. Additionally, the average person can't afford and does not want, a rack full of servers in their home, and even if they did... they couldn't afford it. However, by sharing that rack full of servers with other users many more people can effectively share the same hardware and bring prices down to a reasonable level.

The latency is not a big deal. We're talking a few hundred milliseconds, or less, if you've got a proper CDN and a decent pipe. I stream games through my Nvidia Shield all the time and seldom notice any delay between the button being pressed and the screen updating. Or when I speak to Alexa, Ok Google, or Siri. That tiny delay is certainly better than human reaction time, and certainly less time then it would take for a single weak local CPU to perform the task that just occupied dozens of cores with TB's of memory in the cloud for a fraction of a millisecond.

This just isn't true. It's more cost effective to host resource-intensive tasks in data centers and stream the results in most or many cases. That's why Google, Amazon, Apple, Nvidia, and a ton of other people are both offering the services and using them in their own products.

Yes. Eventually, the car will have a local CPU as failback, and will operate with reduced functionality when a connection is unavailable or unsuitable.

It would be too computationally expensive to house the 'brains' inside the robot. Far cheaper to stream it's interactions to the cloud. Most people will gladly trade their privacy for a robot that can wash the dishes, or do the laundry though. People trade it now just to play Farmville.

Is there anyone left on the internet who doesn't work for Russia?

None of that matters if betrayed America's ideals to achieve it.