I think that some people believe that any kind of technology will help, in much the same way that tablets, laptops, and computers before them were introduced to early education in the hopes that they would improve outcomes. Even there thereby results have been dubious or generally non-existent. All of those things are merely tools, and while it would benefit someone to learn how to use a computer for a number of jobs, there's little specialized need requiring students to need to learn how to use a smartphone. They'll do that fine on their own. However thinking that they need any of those tools for every class is as absurd as thinking they should carry a screwdriver around all day in the hopes that it can improve educational outcomes.

I can give people the benefit of the doubt for being hopeful that it might work, but several decades of data has now shown that it doesn't. I'm sure the education companies will find some new woo to peddle if schools stop buying technology. I don't know what that might be, but I can hear the hype training coming down the tracks.

I'm sure some people will find this patent to be deeply upsetting, but Walmart having patented it hopefully ensures that no other stores will be able to use it. It's been years since I've shopped at a Walmart so them doing this doesn't affect me at all. Perhaps this patent could be granted in perpetuity so that other stores are unable to use it after the usual 14/28 year period.

I disagree with this sentiment and would argue that regulation is what usually ends up causing the problems you decry, which is often referred to as regulatory capture where the entrenched businesses wind up getting laws passed to their own benefit that limit competition because new or smaller competitors cannot afford the costs of complying with the regulations. Outside of narrow cases involving serious potential for bodily harm or similarly severe consequences, the regulations do more harm than good. The added costs they create are passed on to consumers, but usually not transparently in a way that would allow anyone to know their true cost. Imagine if sales tax weren't separated from the shelf price. How could you as a consumer distinguish between a store screwing you and a tax hike?

Any market will tend towards consolidation and fewer competitors over time. That just reduces redundancy. It however doesn't prevent new companies from entering the market. Existing companies can try to hamper those efforts, but their best options are either lowering prices or offering better service because in a market free of intervention their only other alternatives are either criminal or tend to make their own product worse. Most monopolies eventually get supplanted when a new and better alternative is invented because established companies that don't innovate will become incapable and less able to do things outside of their core competencies. It's why Amazon replaced WalMart, who replaced older retailers, that replaced companies that maybe only exist as a brand name at this point. At one time Sears was the leading retailer, but they were too stuck in their ways and diminished over time.

Why use the neural net at all if the artists have already made the game look the way that they want? The only possible reason is that it's an older game made for lower resolutions and it looks blocky/bad on modern displays. DLSS has been a solution in search of a problem for several generations now. I can't wait to see this applied to some games that weren't cherry picked because it will produce nightmare fuel. Imagine playing a game from the early 2000's where the faces are just good enough for the algorithm to latch onto and make look hyper-realistic while everything else is untouched around it. It'll be amusing, but nothing I'd really want to use once the initial shock has worn off.

Why would you expect a publicly traded company to pay wages any higher than they have to? Do you regularly pay more than the sticker price for something at the store? Of course not.

The only thing that can reliably create higher wages is competition. When workers have a choice of where to work, companies must naturally compete for their labor. It's no different when you go to the store and have a variety of products available for purchase. Do you think the price would still be as low if there weren't alternatives?

Employees also have an easy path to realizing the gains of their employers for themselves by buying stock in the company. Many tech companies even pay employees by granting stock or stock options. Anyone who wants can become a partial owner of a publicly traded company and reap the rewards of profitable quarters themselves. Alternatively they can leave and form their own company and as an owner be the one to keep all of that profit for themselves.

Anyone who's completely altruistic or isn't just as greedy themselves (and merely envious of others) isn't even complaining about this as they don't care. They just act according to their beliefs and don't care about the (to them) idiotic game that everyone else is playing because they find it meaningless.

Why not just switch to yearly reporting? Companies can still report more often, but if it allows companies to hire managers that aren't constantly chasing quarterly results at the expense of long term prospects, it's better for everyone other than investors that like to profit off of valuation swings from quarterly earnings reports. Those people aren't creating anything of real value anyway so why should I care if they have to find something more useful to do?

Is this at all surprising when there's a lot of empty office space in many large cities? Unless a business is looking to build somewhere new, there's very little reason to put up a new office building when there's a lot of available space at the moment.

I'd pick the people who made Arcane, the animated show based on the League of Legends MOBA. The first season of that was amazing and a well written Firefly sequel animated in that style would definitely be worth watching.

It's not great, but it's better than being stuck with ChromeOS and Play Store apps. Considering how cheap some Chromebooks are, it's nice to have. Technically ChromeOS is Linux anyway, just filtered through a browser.

That's all well and good, but do tell what is a "reasonable" profit or a "good" price? No one will ever agree on these. The issue here is that these ticket companies largely operate as monopolies in the towns where they do business. The government needs to do more to ensure that a competitive market exists which will naturally ensure that consumers get better prices.

How long until it can spew bullshit using full PowerPoint presentations. I ask because I'm starting an initiative at work to replace management with AI and being able to put unrealistic hallucinations regarding scheduling, etc. in to PowerPoint form is currently the only thing holding the project back.

I have gone without food for a week while fasting before. That doesn't mean that I can do without food entirely though.

It probably means scummier scammier advertisements because that's who can afford to live in that environment. The other side effect will be more advertising in the content itself. The marketing firms aren't going to let themselves go out of business and they'll find alternative cheaper ways of selling their services. Regardless of whether this is a net positive, it isn't the win that you're envisioning.

What's wrong with quicksort? It's not necessarily the best sorting algorithm for all purposes and radix sort or merge sort will perform better in specific cases, but it's a good algorithm. The only real problem with quicksort is that if you choose a bad pivot, it will have horrible performance. It is kind of funny to have a sorting algorithm that runs slower on a sorted list than one that's completely disorganized, but that's not exactly a hard problem to solve if you understand how it works. Newer algorithms have largely made it obsolete, but quicksort usually had better real world performance than its contemporaries because it could be done in place. Memory is nowhere near as limited as it once was, but not needing auxiliary memory can be more important than possible time improvements when space is limited.

Does the insurance industry also run afoul of this or is it different because reasons?