The trouble with Transhumanists is that they all imagine there will eventually be only one human per company with an army of AI's to do the work.

But they all think they'll be that one person.

Also, they're insane.

Boogergooks.

They've never met 7th Grade boys, have they?

Given that big companies have already made it clear that they think AI will let them do the same work with fewer people, and given that using AI costs the company a lot in terms of compute resources, it seems intuitively obvious that the only reason execs would want to encourage more AI use is to find out what jobs can easily have their headcount reduced by more use of AI.

The people using the most tokens are the ones for whom more of their jobs can be most easily automated. This is not, IMO, a positive sign for the long-term survival of that particular job role. The only rational response is to use AI just enough to show a speed-up, assuming the speed-up actually happens at all, but not enough to be high up on the chart of AI users. Using it way more than that seems self-defeating.

Yeah, that was confusing. But Kenya's president is almost certainly wrong. Here's why:

1. It is not numerically correct, assuming the numbers in the summary are accurate. The country has a surplus adequate to power the data center at somewhere around half to three-quarters capacity even at peak power use, and probably at full capacity for 99 days out of 100. So even if they built it at full capacity right off the bat and did nothing else, you'd still only lose power to a small fraction of Kenya occasionally.

2. They're not building it at full capacity. They're building a small data center at first, then building it up over time as more generating capacity comes online.

3. They're a reliable customer of power. That means that they will alway pay the bill, even if it is high. The grid operators and generation plant operators can charge them a huge premium for bulk power, then use that extra revenue to build more power plants. By the time the data center is running at full capacity, they could have more than enough power to power it.

4. Even if that extra investment in production doesn't happen, they can just refuse to provide the additional power from the grid. I'm sure Microsoft knows how to do solar + storage by now, and if not, they can pay someone to do it for them who does. Or they can build their own geothermal plant right next to the existing one. Or they can do any number of other things to produce power, like installing an SMR.

5. Nothing inherently prevents them from reducing power usage during peak load periods. Service will get slower, but should gracefully degrade, assuming they're doing it right. Nobody will lose power, realistically speaking.

It is unfortunate that so many people look at these data centers and the current worst-case state of resource availability and conclude wrongly that they are infeasible, but this is a common mistake made by planners, legislators, and members of the general public. They fail to account for how the existence of the data center with its need for resources will trigger the production of facilities to exploit previously unusable resources and make them available, and they fail to recognize that in a true power emergency, they can just turn 90% of it off and shift the load to other data centers.

But the reality of the matter is that nobody is going to build a gigawatt of additional power capacity in Kenya unless the government or some private company that needs power pays them to do it. They already have a 23 to 30% surplus compared with their worst-case power consumption. That means that adding more production will just drive power prices down, so they'll get less money for the power they produce.

But as soon as someone like Microsoft starts needing enough power to pull those margins down, suddenly additional capacity becomes economically feasible, and you'll see either existing power companies expanding or new power companies entering the market. And the existence of an all-but-guaranteed higher future demand is the key to making that happen. Without the data center being approved, that motive to expand does not exist, and the grid will likely stay at or near its currently levels unless the government forces the hand of the market by paying someone to build more generating capacity.

The geothermal plant already exists: https://www.globalelectricity....

Apparently, Microsoft was proposing to build the data center there and tap into the existing geothermal power, not build new geothermal power (the summary was a little confusing about that).

Forget legal power ... HOW? What technical mechanism does the FCC have that can block firmware updates over the public internet? Are we proposing a China-style "Great Firewall" for U.S. consumers?

MS could be far more evil than they are, given their power and market-share. At least Satya is the devil we know.

Lying to the Board and lying to the public are different things.

When CUDA started taking off we had ATI hardware, to support their open source pledge, and looked into ROCm.

Just getting the drivers to build on EL-anything was an extreme effort, and it wasn't my first rodeo.

Without betraying confidences, I was told second-hand that there were only ten people on the GPU driver team across all platforms and that they were doing their best and not sleeping enough as it was, with Compute way behind gaming bugs on the priority list.

I couldn't independently verify of course but the theory fit the data.

I immediately empathized with the suffering of the devs and went out and bought nVidia cards, annoying binary drivers and all.

Since then I've felt like that some bean counter at AMD wrote nVidia a trillion dollar check.

If you're not a tiny company *overstaff* your engineering departments so you don't miss new opportunities as they arise. The opportunity costs exceed the opex costs.

FTFY.

rivals like AMD and Intel offer competitive specs on paper, but their software stacks have struggled with bugs, compatibility issues, and weak adoption. As a result, Nvidia has built an Apple-like moat around AI computing, leaving the industry dependent on its expensive hardware.

Nvidia's competitors need to work together to improve open-source software tooling and to standardize hardware interfaces, or else go the way of Commodore and Tandy.

Same here but this lack of support will matter much less than dropping i486.

There are still embedded systems sold today that only meet i486 specs. I don't use them but some industries do.

Sure a $12 ESP32 can handle those tasks but it's a revalidation thing.

Not that anybody from those vendors stepped forward to maintain a tree.

What I'm saying is that if everyone had IPv6 in their homes and offices, remote access wouldn't require all the silly cloud server games. You could just hit the device directly by its IPv6 address, and assuming your router suppoerts UPNP pinholes, you're done. You'd need dynamic DNS and that's it.

An emergency stop button in the app should be able to do the same thing. If that's not possible, it's a rather bad design flaw.

Also, if something jams in a way that could cause meaningful damage (beyond having to brush blobs of filament off of the hot end) and the printer doesn't detect it, that's also a rather bad design flaw.

OTR might be small enough.

The Axolotl Ratchet is much better but perhaps too big for SMS.

TextSecure probably would have offered it were that feasible.

Of course if you can arrange one-time pads you're 1:1 at 140 characters.

Cheapskate co. doesn't want to pay for retraining from one IT specialty to another.