skeptical that whatever is going on justifies that its stock should be punished like that.

Further, Apple would survive an AI bubble burst better than the other big tech companies because Apple doesn't depend as much on AI products nor AI-oriented investment funds.

It's fucking alien bees!

Apple's P/E ratio has nearly doubled over the last ten to fifteen years. They've benefited from irrational growth during that time and now they have to suffer a potentially irrational loss. The big players get more attention, so the market has a tendency to overreact to good or bad news about them. If you're that incensed by it, put your money where your mouth is and buy the dip.

Apple is so obsessed with vertical integration that it's hard to fathom how this hasn't already happened. It's not like they don't have the money or clout to hire the talent and procure the equipment.

Wait, what do you mean that's wrong?

Summary: "SpaceX stock gets mooned"

This "news" comes out just when comparable Chinese models are coming out, and the US CEO's claim their wayward bot proves Chinese models are capable of doing evil deeds for Xi and thus need to be curtailed.

How about the Statue of Liberty frozen into the ice of Lake Mendota in Madison, WI?

https://news.wisc.edu/history-....

Sorry you feel that way, but it's a reasonable take on reality. There are two types of situations: Situations where you want to learn about X and situations where you need to know the answer to some very specific, but narrow question about X. For the second question, giant, ad-laden websites where the answer is buried in a pile of unrelated information are basically a disservice. You're paying for the information not just by watching their ads, but by wading through all the other crap.

In an ideal universe, there would be some sort of micropayment system, where websites earned money just from people visiting, and it came out of a fund paid into by ISPs, and the amount paid would be proportional to how many sites the Internet users of the world hit that day, and it would have some way of avoiding payment to link farms and other similar garbage content. And this would be an international system, and it would be designed in a way that somehow perfectly preserved privacy while maintaining auditability. I have no idea what that would look like, of course.

In the absence of such a scheme, though, there will always be a tug of war for power between content creators and browser/search companies, because the latter are trying to do what is best for the user in the short term, and the former are trying to get paid to protect what is best for the user in the long term. And I'm really not sure how to solve that problematic power dynamic, except by suggesting that perhaps that tug of war might actually be the solution, because it means neither side has too much power and control.

Apparently not, or at least the web version refused when I asked.

I assume there was some form of contract. Generally speaking, any time you send somebody unsolicited copyrighted material, you can expect it to get summarily thrown in the trash, so whomever you sent it to can't fall for the old "you stole my idea" bugaboo.

VFX studios are already doing this for their production pipelines. The processing happens in a data center; all the artists see is essentially a terminal window. Nobody can "walk off" with anything.

C3PO: "Bots reporting bots, how perverse!"

NASA lost the original Apollo 11 "first walk" video. Existing copies are screen-grabs, so lost resolution. Speculation is the tapes inadvertently got reused.

Biggest bonehead "lost originals" so far.

> Sooo, they get money from their enterprises via high tax that they then give back to subsidize them? How does that work?

It allows them to take money from established "cash cow" industries to prop up the expansion of selected industries. It's roughly comparable to Microsoft subsidizing an up-and-coming product or category using all their Windows and MS-Office profits, often bankrupting competitors in the process.