Remember that the West also used direct government money to finance R&D. It's just that it happened decades ago (following WW2 mostly). China is just a few decades late in that game, due to its own history, but is maybe pushing it further instead of letting the market handling it (and we all know the market isn't self-regulating as much as its defenders claim).

It's not a surprise all of those three are filling for IPO roughly at the same time. As the AI hype is starting to weaken and the bubble is closer to bursting (40% of the S&P500 is about AI investment, an insanely disproportionate share historically), the early investors (which I'm surprised are even mentioned) need to cash in while the companies are overvaluted in order to make money. They'll swoop back in when the share price is at its lowest and reflects more accurately the values of these companies. In the meantime, the retail investors (that is, the general population who are not aware of all this and only listen to the hype of AI and not the economists who say the contrary) will be left holding the bag.

While the company is overvalued so initial investors can earn money. It wouldn't for them a few months after going public since the stock would have crashed already, so it makes sense they talk about it now. At least that's how I see it.

Warhammer 40,000 enjoyers will appreciate the cynicism.

I know it's a little bit naive but instead of blocking that sort of things - which instead gives us a myriad of streaming services, making it very expensive for anyone who wants to watch different shows on different platforms - I would much rather prefer something a little bit more radical. Separate the streaming platforms from the content owners. Or rather, make it mandatory for content owners to sign diffusion deals with every willing streaming platform, at a fair price. Maybe allow them to keep their content exclusive for say one year, and then they have to license it outside as well. I know this would never fly, but if this became a law (which would also never happen because of the shitstorm of lobbying this would generate) it would probably be one of the best thing that happened to streaming since streaming became a thing - for the consumer, that is.

How is it not as functional as Windows 7 start menu, I'm curious? You've got the same shortcuts and you can (un)pin stuff there, just like in W7.

The free game is a trick to get you on UPlay.

Also, get on board with the rest of the world and use the same electrical sockets. It's annoying having to carry adapters (most of which are electrical hazards on their own) when traveling.

Microsoft video streaming technology over HTTP works just fine and is still fully supported and improved upon, last I checked. It's one of the 4 major implementation of Adaptive Bitrate Streaming (Apple HLS, MPEG DASH, Adobe Zeri and Microsoft Smooth/HDS). The Silverlight requirement was there because the client needs logic to switch up (or down) in bitrate depending on network conditions - instead of buffering, hence the "adaptive" part. The specification is open and anybody can implement it. The DRM part is optional, it's not Microsoft (or Apple or MPEG or Adobe or Netflix) fault it exists, it's the movie/show producers.

To make it "HTML5" somebody just needs to make a ABR client that will replace a browser's interpretation of the "video" or whatever tag Netflix uses on web pages. A set-top box doesn't need that, it can just connect over HTTP through a REST service to request the video manifest (the file that contains the URI of video fragments).

These guys have their head so deep up their asses they don't even understand the problem. The problem is that an album shouldn't cost $15 (or a $20 CD) with only a small amount (say, $1) actually going to the band while the rest is pocketed by the label. I realize labels need to market and produce albums, and that's how they justify their huge share of a sell. But when you look at their annual profits, clearly most of the money isn't spent.

The small bands are doing just fine self-producing albums in a home studio and sell them online DRM-free for $5 (while pocketing most of that amount). Sure, the big bands will want an overpriced producer, record in an overpriced studio, and market their albums on huge billboards. But small bands don't need that. I LOVE spending $5 on a small band's album, as an incentive to them. I rarely buy big band albums, except when there are on sale or that there's a huge production and added value (like a making-of or some sort of documentary for instance).

The problem is not pirating. The problem is that music is overpriced, so people pirate it. Or, like me, people don't like, as a principle, spending money when I know that most of it will NOT go to the band. And they also need to remember that every single DRM to date has been defeated. Stop pissing against the wind.

There is a way that you can read the email but Apple can't : encrypting using a private key generated on your user account (much like what the TextSecure Android and iOS application does). If Apple does this, that would be an interesting undocumented feature. (spoiler: they don't do this).

I never got the reaction of the start screen. It's basically a full screen Start Menu. The Metro App are way more confusing than the start screen.

Isn't this exactly what guilty until proven innocent is?

Shhhh. A nerd's going to make 2 billions, keep it quiet lest Microsoft backs off.

Not doing fracking won't get us the data we need

But what if doing the fracking causes irreversible damage? Maybe we need to make the mistake to realize it's one, but then it might be too late. Some countries apply the "Principle of precaution", that is, "if you're not sure of the effects of what you're doing, don't fucking do it."