"Doing it in software means you can move CPUs from one machine to another based on the time of day."

Which you could do with a single OS much more effectively.

"Your CI infrastructure can lose some resources from its UI at night and make another server for nightly builds when most of your users are away, without either having a VM layer in between or needing the builds to happen on a kernel configured with the features needed by the UI."

But not without restarting and with the limitation that different "systems" can corrupt each others' memory. It's a crappy reimagining of all the problems an OS was made to solve before we were born.

Downloading music could be illegal, training using illegally obtained information could also be. But you'd need to prove the illegal downloading and provide that the training materials were illegally obtained. An AI could "listen to" music that was broadcast just like humans can, it seems as though this is just another permutation of the same baseless assertion that AI training and other forms of use are inherently different.

Of course, no one should doubt that AI companies are consuming copyrighted works at a colossal scale, but that doesn't mean they are breaking laws. Laws need to change, but AI companies own politicians.

They've produced another billion dollars in new shows that we don't care about, and they are absolutely entitled to profit from it. Those are the rules, don't like it maybe you'll like deportation instead.

While all of this is true, it is not unique to cable/streaming. It is literally every market.

Our current form of capitalism is entitlement to corporate profit, guaranteed enrichment of the wealthy at the expense of society. All the bad parts of a system of greed, no good parts from free markets. Yet the public doesn't realize they keep voting for this, instead they're excited to vote for their hatred of colored and trans people.

"...comma cannot help your sentence, it can be trivially fixed ..."

and sorry about that ambiguity, I don't proofread my /. posts nearly enough. Obviously, "it" refers the sentence, not the comma.

Style and vocabulary are not the same. You integrate the vocabulary you see, style is a choice.

I am a professional writer that works in a particular professional style. AI cannot possibly affect that.

The less literate you are, the more convinced of your brilliance you'll be.

I am an engineer, my university literally had a required class called "Engr 101". Among the things taught were exactly this style of writing: write what you mean then simply every possible expression and remove every unneeded word. It was incredibly valuable though context is important. Terse writing isn't good for conveying emotion which engineers are not doing.

If an engineer needed to communicate about socks to a colleague the revised version would be vastly preferred. Grandma may not like it, but then Grandma doesn't need to know the sock arrived, she needs to know you are thinking about her. A point you seem to miss. You never need to "pad your writing" but sometimes you don't know what you need to be saying. Of course, some authors are simply paid by the pound.

While you laugh at the ambiguity, I notice the casual dishonesty that doesn't even register with you. The problem with that sentence isn't whether "lower" is a verb or an adjective.

Also, while the Oxford comma cannot help your sentence, it can be trivially fixed using a same approach that solves the same class of problems the Oxford comma addresses.

"...They are now advocating outright Communism, praising Chairman Mao, etc. I am not a far right person..."
Then you must be a fool. Who is "advocating outright Communism" and "praising Chairman Mao"? Citations please.

The whole idea of "extreme left" and "far right" is a joke, it's just identity politics and it's championed by criminals.

"If you haven't been paying attention to the DSA and their members lately, you might think I am exaggerating. I am not."
No, you're just a moron. There is an enormous difference between "outright Communism", "Chairman Mao" and socialism advocacy.

"...considering that the goal is not required by the statute and does not serve any positive purpose..."

Does not serve any positive purpose? Positive purpose must mean making him money personally.

Except we aren't talking about a mere definition of broadband, nor do we care what your data rate requirements are.

"I think it is fundamentally a crisis of trust," Amodei said. "I think that ordinary people don't trust companies, governments, or the tech industry and always suspect that we are cooking up some new way to screw them over."

What insight. Could it be because that's exactly what happens? Capitalism is literally defined by this. And no, public distrust isn't because of "AI leaders" making warnings, it's because of the threat AI poses to people's lives. All of this bullshit pretends that there aren't real facts on the ground, AI is proving what it is, the public has taken notice.

Perhaps learn to get along rather than be racist?

Supply them with what?

"We don't know if AI data centers in space will be important in the future."

No, we do.