In 3 years they'll have run it into the ground and be looking for another new buyer. Coincidentally, 3 years and 9 months was the length of time AT&T owned Warner Brothers before pawning it off on Discovery.
>> I mean what's added in meaning for replacing shop.walmart.com with www.walmart.web.
If the owner of walmart.web is not Walmart but is hoping people think they are, I imagine a great deal of value could be extracted from it.
Students taking on a lifetime of debt to pay tuition are NOT representative of society at large. MOST people will take the legal option if the price is reasonable and the DRM is not invasive.
In other words, it means you don't own it, you just rent it (until the rights-holder decides it's no longer in their interests for you to have access to what you purchased).
Knockoffs do have a legit market, but if I choose to buy them I prefer to do it on Aliexpress where I can cut out the middleman and save a few bucks (in exchange for slightly longer shipping times).
Many businesses offer discounts for paying in cash (if their agreements with credit/debit card companies allow it). Even with no discount, I'd rather have my money go to local business owners than to a bank.
>>What's the real motivation here? Are they thinking that they missed the bus on renewables and that nuclear might be an export industry one day in the distant future?
One word: mining. Canada is the second largest producer and largest exporter of uranium in the world. 33% of the US's uranium comes from Canada. Nuclear is ALREADY a huge export industry for Canada, and developing new uses for it like micro-reactors is way to expand the market (which until recently had been in decline).
A "tool" that lets one programmer do the work of 20 means that 19 will be laid off, regardless of how well they learn the tools. To say nothing of people working in other industries "disrupted" by those tools who will be laid off no matter what they do.
>>Less than a Steam Deck!
>>But the company lost more than $4.9 billion last year, compared with a $791 million profit in 2024, as capital expenditures nearly doubled to $20.7 billion from heavy spending on artificial intelligence development.
At first I assumed that this was because Musk merged xAI with SpaceX, but that didn't actually happen until 2026. Why was SpaceX spending so much on AI during 2025? Is this research for the bonkers data-centers-in-space nonsense?
Google is trying hard to kill sideloading so probably not.
>>If you bothered to read, they are not blaming the victim, they fixed the problem and just point to where it came from.
They fixed one manifestation of the problem. The real source of the problem is that the AI can't seem to evaluate the status of it's training data; even at the most basic level of fiction vs non-fiction, to say nothing of more subtle differences like plausible vs implausible, joking vs serious, fact vs opinion, etc.
It's a fun house mirror that exaggerates some aspects and minimizes others (and you don't know which it will do until you try it).
What needs to be controlled are the firms and people working on AI (just like we regulate research on viruses, genetics, atomic energy, etc).
>> Prof Dawkins said he had let Claude read a draft of the novel he was writing and was astounded by its insights. "He took a few seconds to read it and then showed, in subsequent conversation, a level of understanding so subtle, so sensitive, so intelligent that I was moved to expostulate: 'You may not know you are conscious, but you bloody well are!'" Prof Dawkins said.
Translation: The bot told him that it loved his book (as the overly-agreeable bots are programmed to) and the noted egotist declared that the bot was not just sentient but also brilliant.
CCI Power 6/40: one board, a megabyte of cache, and an attitude...
