That's YOUR characterization, not mine.

You say that as if it's a negative for Democrats. But consider the growth of independents, and how many (of us) are -former Republicans-. And then look at the (appallingly bad) Democratic candidates for the last several Presidential elections. The Progressives are right about one thing: It's the Democratic Establishment that has failed not just the party, but the country. The last time I actually voted for someone, as opposed to against the other person for national office was 2016.

When Democrats start nominating candidates who lean towards the middle, and who abandon the politics of identity for policies that appeal across racial/social lines, they'll start winning competitive elections and even start to swing formerly Red districts (look at Texas Senate!), and then have an opportunity to govern. And I think we're starting to see cracks in the MAGA dominated Republican Party. Those will continue in 2028. It'll take a long time to recover from the bi-polar politics we currently have.

They did so by convincing moderates and independents on things like gay marriage.

Governing in a democracy is actually hard. If you want to just get elected, you can appeal to a base, and then sit on your ass in Congress making policy statements that go nowhere. As much as I despise what and how they're doing, I do have to acknowledge the GOP did get the 1 Bill passed. Of course, after that, they just rolled over and let Trump dictate everything else via Executive Orders.

It is an open question whether a Democratic majority in Congress could work with The Other Side to pass meaningful legislation, even if Trump vetoes everything. If not, a Democratic Congress will spend 2 years conducting Investigations.

Well, so far this century that has been a real challenge for the Democratic Party. This year they seem to be more happy to satisfy their fringe base than to assemble a slate of candidates AND a platform of policies that would appeal to the independents who will actually decide elections.

turn off Rust's safety features (cargo run --release), when you're done.

That's like removing your seat belts after the vehicle crash tests are done.

Author is on a book tour, so I've heard a couple interviews with him. Based on those, I'd characterize Duran's perspective as "Worst likely case", i.e. it's a plausible outcome. What I don't know is whether the people who have the beliefs described in that book are as organized as the book says.

And for at least 5 years, I've been saying "Palantir is the most dangerous company in America."

But at least you know who sets the price on Apple products, no hiding behind third parties, bulk licenses, collaborative marketing, etc, etc, etc.

"Don't worry, be happy!" https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

And to misquote someone else, will AI become the new "Opiate of the masses?"

Unfortunately, my moderator points ran out. someone please mark +1 Insightful

Horace Dideu characterized this as an unprecedented transfer of cash from Microsoft, Google, Amazon, Meta and Oracle shareholders to NVIDIA shareholders. Those are companies with real, substantial revenues and until now, significant positive cash flow (yielding shareholder value.) Draining the tub this way is something that should worry those shareholders. But of course, it's a great year to be an NVIDIA shareholder, with all those other companies (plus OpenAI, Anthropic, and other smaller AI companies) all pouring their free cash flow AND their growing debt, into NVIDIA, and into other companies that supply AI data centers.

That paranoid, "The Zucker will do anything" side me is thinking, "Is this a case of Meta doing something to show their models can keep up with Anthropic/OpenAI?"

And the post above this one, advocating for 'AI hacking is a crime,' is on target. No mod points, so I'm commenting instead. BUT once again, the goal should be to not code these vulnerabilities in the first place! Liability (civil or even criminal) is probably a necessary condition to change how systems are constructed.

No mod points, I'd say +1 funny...

"The Elite Yak Clones" would be a good name for a rock band...

The savings come from the rate Oracle (or any other vendor) charges for a single Enterprise license, compared to the rate Oracle would charge each customer/project separately, summed over the set of projects. Is that clear enough?

(Frankly, that's a surprisingly low number for the savings.)