Just waiting for $200/mo price tag to drop once VC money runs out.

Do you have a source for these things? This is fascinating!

My favorite there being that the revolutionary war was fought by the American ruling class and the general public didn't care much one way or the other.

No doubt the ruling class had the most to gain. But the general public not really caring isn't something I've heard before.

Also the volunteer soldiers they did have, which were few and far between, were also completely useless and the war was fought almost entirely with paid mercenaries.

I know the Brits used mercs but wasn't aware the States used them with any significance.

I assume this is kind of a way for a game to say "yeah, don't need all the clocks, thanks..." in a way that gives devs a testable max performance target that can be more aggressive than, say, just down/up-clocking the chips on demand based on heuristics (which is already happening today).

I can't imagine the average PS5 user will care about saving a few pennies a year by consuming a little less power, especially if it limits game functionality or makes the graphics worse. Even businesses displaying PS5s... I can't imagine the power ask is huge, but maybe it is?

Making it a setting with tradeoffs is the one thing that throws off my understanding. It seems like it should be automatic.

Indeed, the people complaining don't understand the niche this camera occupies.

Many photographers would probably want the a6700 or a7c if they need a fuller-featured camera.

This one is about being compact and simple. It occupies a similar slot as Leica's fixed-lens cameras, or for a less expensive variety, a Ricoh GR. You go with this camera when size is important, when you want to take a nice camera into a venue that doesn't allow interchangable lens cameras (concerts/etc.). Or, if you've got money to burn, simply having a nice sensor with a limiting feature set might aid creativity.

With a UID that low, you still haven't found the benefit of AI?

Your bubble is showing

Such a fucked up system that employment is now a pawn used by marketing to pretend AI is 'ready'.

That being said, ...

I have the same suspicions you and everyone else do, but my comment was more about consistency of outrage.

Challenge hipocrisy by stating clearly that there is no double standard divisive bullshit. I really dislike that I feel compelled to do so, but I just see so much of it and Slashdot is definitely no exception.

Anyone who'd actually used VR or AR could predict the Vision's lackluster performance.

It was marketed as an AR device to compete with Hololens, but it doesn't allow you to move freely with confidence like a Hololens does because you can only see inside the tiny FOV.

It seemed to compete more with a Quest in terms of features and applicability, but they seemed to actively avoid marketing this, maybe to avoid comparison with a $300 device.

The first release was a toy for techies with disposable income -- I really can't believe they thought it would take off like fire. I'm curious to see which direction the followup leans in.

I don't think it's that they exhausted market share, but that they've exhausted the amount of training data they have.

Imagine how much more data on user behavior and website interpretation they can collect from a browser.

It's hard to tell the full context of things like this these days, but if legally required process was not followed, then I agree with the decision -- even though the FTC's regulation was a clearly good one for us.

If you stop following the law, it's a slippery slope until it all falls apart. One day it's passing bypassing laws on enacting regulation, the next day you might start deporting people without trial or something.

The advisory feels about as effective as moving clouds by yelling at them.

I bet OpenAI is realizing they've hit some bump in achieving actual AGI.

If they don't reach it, does Microsoft essentially come away with a perpetual license for all OpenAI stuff? That doesn't seem fair, but maybe it's binding?

The definition of AGI aside, seems like an interesting court case.

Given that experience, how would you apply that to the current conversation so there's not a repeat?

How do we improve their success rate while still giving education on essential tools?

AI is here -- you can dislike it, but it'd be a mistake to ignore it. I recognize we're worried about AI making us dumber in the same way phones removed our memory for phone numbers. But, this tool is incredibly useful and not going anywhere, just like phones.

The same way we trained kids on computers, they should be taught AI compentency. With AI competency comes language, critical thinking, and research -- huge skills applicable everywhere, not just AI.

And when they need help learning a new subject, they should apply that competency to getting the Math/etc. help they need. Using AI to learn a new subject has been far and above the best use case in my life, and with competency training kids (and teachers) can find the same educational impact.

It doesn't need to be a detriment.