The first issue is if the only thing it takes to get around these sites paywalls is disabling some scripts, then they don't have a paywall at all. There are ways to put your content behind a paywall so it cannot be accessed (see porn sites). If they are just running a script to stop you, then I have no issue with Brave disabling that script to allow users to run the page without it. Sorry NYT, get a better paywall.

The second issue is the bigger one. If they are truly accessing these sites and scaping the data and offering it to other companies, that is an entirely different thing. That is basically taking the content and redistributing it, which is a huge deal. I would side with the NYT on that one.

Uncopyrightable just means public domain. Using public domain code doesn't make your whole work public domain.

"A technology can create value by reducing uncertainty, improving coordination, avoiding mistakes, increasing resilience, or expanding opportunities. Those benefits do not necessarily show up as higher output per worker."

This makes zero sense. What good are these things if they do not increase output? If you reduce uncertainty, you cut the time needed to make a decision, thus less wasted time and more output. If you avoid mistakes, that should increase output. If you increase resilience, that means less slowdowns and downtime which should increase output. Expanding opportunities should also increase output unless you are already at capacity. The whole point of these things is to make things more streamlined and increase output.

California should do like China and build data centers on bottom of the ocean for cooling, then build wind and solar farms for power.

1) Does anyone really think this will happen? I would put as much faith in this as I do Trump's $5000 checks in the GOP wins the midterms.
2) Does anyone really think he is going to give away his personal shares? Most likely, if it happens, they would issue 73 millions additional shares (or less as he will find some way to send them to only certain people), thus devalueing not only these new shares, but all the shares.
3) Even if he did give his own shares, that is still a time amount of his wealth. Does anyone really think he would ever even notice this change in wealth? This just shows how incredibly out of touch the uber rich are with regular people. This is about 1% of his net worth. He could give away 50% and it would never be noticed. But because it is a big number, people think this is rich people doing good when it is them doing the minimum for good press.

Yes, they did need the money for themselves. But one thing you seem to not understand about poor people is that they are much more likely to actually help people they see and know that are doing worse than them. The rich like to talk a lot about charity and giving, but they generally give less as a percentage of their income and wealth than poor people. Because these people know what it is like to be broke, they are more willing to give even the little extra they have to someone who needs it more than they do.

Have you considered that since they've proven that word prediction algorithms can solve actual logic problems, that they've also proven that they're right, and anyone denying that must be a fucking moron?

I don't think current LLMs are sapient or have any agency or feelings. That said, it *shocks* me that you think you're anything more than a pile of matrix math. What do you think your brain does? It's also just a neural network, it just happens to be more complex.

Even worse, this is an initial hardware release from Apple. Apple does eventually keep their hardware updated for a fairly long time... on the third or fourth iteration. But the early versions tend to see only a couple of years of updates before Apple drops them.

You can see that with the iPhone, iPad, Apple Watch, and Apple TV: their original versions only received a couple of years of updates before Apple demanded people update to the newer ones. The original hardware in all of them was also severely underpowered compared to the versions released a few years later. And if you look back to the original iPod, this is hardly a new thing with Apple. When the iPod was first released, it was pretty lame. It only became popular once USB support was added several hardware iterations later.

Which means that the traditional device holds: don't buy revision 1 Apple hardware. Wait a few revisions until it appears to stabilize. Or don't buy it at all if they just drop it, like the original HomePod (note the new one is part of the "HomePod Mini" line) or Apple Vision. (Where's the non-Pro version, Apple? I'm assuming that was planned at one point.)

The PC as a gaming platform died when GPUs broke $1000 for an entry-level GPU. And that's just the baseline. If you want a gaming-capable PC you're looking at spending $4000 right now. That's just not happening. This article covers the death of consoles.

You ever talked with children? Even teenagers? There are three big games right now: Fortnite, Roblox, and Minecraft. And that's it. All those run on phones. That's where the kids play. They don't understand how to use a controller and don't really understand how to use a laptop, let alone a desktop computer. They're at home on phones and as an extension tablets. It's what they grew up with.

It's where the future of video games is going to be, because that's what the next generation is comfortable playing on.

They are. The future of gaming are cell phones and tablets. That's what kids learn to game on these days, and when they grow up, that's where they're going to game.

There's a reason the Nintendo Switch is essentially a weird tablet. PC gaming has been dead for a while and console gaming pretty much died thanks to shortages at the start of the pandemic. There's a good chance GTA6 will be the last major console game.

But everyone has a phone. Kids see their parents using them, and they tend to be the first devices kids learn to use. That's where gaming will be in the future - small things people play on their phones.

Everyone wants to use systems beyond their design points. Or rather, more accurately, the design point is *always* the cheapest way to accomplish a goal, and that's a moving target.

If you are a company that provides an embedded system with a known functionality that requires a specific amount of RAM, and you realize you can ship that system with less RAM because you of CRAM or ZRAM, you just decreased your costs and increased your margin. There is literally no embedded provider that wouldn't be looking at that.

I can, however, tell you that you don't understand what science is, or how it functions.

It has not. In fact, the criticism against string theory is *precisely that it is pretty much impossible to debunk* because you've got so may parameters to mess with that you can make just about anything work with string theory. It's a bit like overfitting: if you want to find an equation that perfectly fits your 10,000 data points, you can certainly give a polynomial of order 9,999. Is that going to accurately model the mechanism that caused the data points you gathered, or be a good predictor for additional sampling? Not necessarily. You've overfitted the crap out of your model, it behaves weirdly between the points, it treats random noise or outliers as deterministic and valid, etc.

Is this what's going on with string theory? Maybe. It could also be that it's right. It's *really hard* to come up with an experiment that could falsify it with the technology we currently have. Does that by itself mean it's wrong and we should give up on it? No. Does that mean we should also be looking at other avenues? Yes. And we are, there are plenty of physicists who work with alternative theories and are vocal critics of string theory.

There is no person that holds that belief that isn't a moron. You included, thank you for outing yourself. I won't respond to any more of your responses, because I do know that debating idiots like you is like playing chess with a pigeon: You knock the pieces down, shit on the board, and strut around like you've won. I'll continue answering your post for anyone else who cares to read so they can understand WHY you're an idiot, but I don't really care about your opinion.

1. 1. Anything that is rigorous is real science. It's not defined as useful to you right now. Anything we discover, whether the path we're going down ends up being correct or not, is valuable.
2. 2. I'll let Angela Collier, who, btw, *also* does not like String Theory and happens to agree with you that it was a waste of time, tell you about many of the exciting discoveries made in physics over the past 70 years. I'm not even going to address the point you said "scientists" in general, as in, making the claim that ALL science has apparently been a standstill for decades, where the world I live in today is barely fucking recognizable compared to the world I lived in 20 years ago. I don't mean just in technology, I mean in terms of what we know. My god, we have NEVER been in a time that is more prolific than the time we live in right now, whatever you're learning in school will be outdated by the time you leave college, will be outdated by the time you get a graduate degree. If you're not learning while you work, you're a dinosaur and your job is at risk. The world of science today moves FAST.

Maths masturbation is *great* and we need more of it. This is one of the problems with Sabine: she likes to go, "it's just math." Buddy, If it's not rigorous math, it's not worth anything, if it is rigorous math, and it doesn't match reality, the paper it was written on is still worth its weight in gold. Do you like the world you live in with online baking and secure encryption? Thank all the mathematicians of old doing number theory for the sake of it, finding properties of prime numbers and elliptical curves. Einstein didn't like Minkowski's use of a four-dimensional spacetime to frame his special theory of relativity and then he learned it turned out to be super useful, and embraced geometry when developing his general theory of relativity, and embraced something else that essentially had no use outside of pure mathematics at that time: tensors.

If (and I do mean if, because like I said, it hasn't been 'debunked' as you claim) String Theory turns out to be COMPLETELY wrong, all the work done in it will be useful to advance what we discover is right.

You and Weinstein need to engage in a little bit more of "Maths Masturbation". Especially considering his "geometric unity" theory doesn't have enough math in it to be a rigors theory. He should get on that.

Roger Penrose is a brilliant man whom I highly respect, who happens to disagree with String Theory and actually most of the direction that any quantum theory of gravity tends to go towards. Most physicists want to quantize gravity, he thinks they should instead be trying to explain quantum physics in relativistic terms. Now, he's in the minority with that claim, but he could be right, and I appreciate that someone is making strides toward that. Although he often uses strong language to disagree with, I *seriously* doubt he would say the people working with it have "wasted their time" or aren't doing "real science."

I also want to point out Sabine is pretty critical of CCC, Penrose's theory he hopes will replace the inflationary model. Because Sabine, isn't trying to propose alternatives. She pretty much goes, "I think string theory has go nowhere, oh well. Let's just not study it or any alternatives anymore, lest we do any math masturbation." That's not science. Creating hypothesis, making the theory rigorous, and testing predictions is the job.

I don't think anyone's worried about a "blue wave" showing up. We all remember the "blue trickle" of 2018, when the polls showed a massive blue wave that failed to materialize. "The polls" have been massively off for at least the past decade and there's no reason to think anyone has figured out a way to fix that.

Assuming there isn't ballot fraud on a massive scale, the worst we're likely to see is the gap in the House become slightly narrower. The idea that either will flip control is ludicrous. People forget how utterly despised Democrats are.

Jesus, not this shit again. You know why colleges are 58-61% women? Because 55-60% of the application submitted are from women. Now, with us acknowledging that more women are in college (and graduating college) now look at something like amount of women CEOs. Or the general pay gap. Or even the pay gap in the same job (much smaller, but still exists). If women are getting more college degrees, shouldn't that mean they also earn more and get higher positions since people with college degrees earn more? So why isn't this happening? Care to explain how that with your anti-male bias BS?