The real issue is that the packaging process used to create vaccines in quantity is a process where you mix a tank of mRNA with a tank of other stuff and get a tank of lipid nanoparticles. Getting different mRNA in each dose means you only get one patient's vaccine per time you start and stop the machine. There's also a step where one copy of mRNA is used to make a macroscopic quantity of copies in a bioreactor that needs to be flushed in between different sequences, but can just run when making enough of the same thing for a large population. It's likely that the cost for each different sequence will come down if it's worth designing and building equipment that switches every dose, but there's an intermediate time between proving that the treatment is useful and being able to provide it in a cost-effective way.

See they're pretending that those songs were creatio ex nihilo and contain absolutely no musical themes, patterns, or likenesses of roughly two thousand years of Western musical works. So those completely unique and totally in no way derivative works deserve exclusive copyright protection and ownership by immortal corporations. The only fair duration would be until the heat death of the universe. Also you should pay them fees for even thinking about those songs.

It's clearly all the superfans who hear that there's a new album and immediately drive into their local record store. (Rather than doing the sensible, calm thing and entering the store on foot.)

Thank you for your feedback *aniels. We'll get back to you at 2?2-555-1212 in the next couple of days.

When someone with evidence refuses to produce evidence for evaluation you can rightly assume the evidence tells a story they don't want told.

I think we already have a definite minimum that handles the situation.

The article indicates all the books have an ISBN.

Here's a hint for the general masses. ISBN isn't printed in your one-off rare manuscript. It's printed in mass produced books from the twentieth century or later.

Hey didn't get quite the buyin they wanted on the original story so they manufactured this one by shipping a book to Amazon.

It isn't, but I find this article extract and its tone unprofessional, so honestly I couldn't care less anymore.

I would like to think that there is legislation that prevents a company from eliminating your legal rights. The people should always have the right to bring a class action and no terms and conditions could ever eliminate this. If this isn't federal law, it needs to be. As another example, could Walmart make a condition of entry to a store such that if you are suspected of shoplifting you waive your right to remain silent when interrogated by police?

There is a whole culture around the tech bros that enables them to believe that what is good for them is ipso facto good for society. This allows them to think of themselves not as the ruthless capitalist barons they are, but as actual helpers and patrons of society.

This is also the basic manifesto of venture capital. Profits are inherently good and "consolidating fragmented markets" (i.e. monopolism) is also inherently good because they bring "innovation" to "everyone".

It's an exaggerated kind of neoliberalism from people who spend very little time outside of a rather narrow world.

The notion that AI can solve political problems is pure balderdash. Political problems get solved when people organize and interact with each other in ways that create stability and trust and enable societal or policy changes that address the problem. You can run AI a million ways to "solve" climate change, but until something gets people to negotiate and adopt different ways of operating, all AI has done is burn compute (ironically exacerbating climate change) while generating another set of outputs that nobody pays attention to.

But these are not people who like the slow boring of political work; they'd rather fantasize about some computer doing that.

If you're hitting something the size of a building you don't need an Nvidia chip.

My issue with it isn't that they're using a processor, it's that this class of processor is likely overkill. So, either it's so readily available they have a warehouse full of them, or somebody wants to stir up shit. I'm guessing it's effectively the latter. It's more politically with it to raise the concern that it is to bother sourcing this component for production.

Basic image recognition sufficient for mapping navigation can be done in significantly lesser hardware.

Why?!

Seems most likely to be a misinformation campaign. There's plenty of ways to navigate a middle and none of them require AI.

The $100/yr for a developer doesn't come close to covering publishing costs.

Spotify doesn't charge for their app, they provide subscriptions, and have a large install base. Downloading a million apps when there is an update for instance isn't free for Apple.

I think they are very generous with the small developers. And the way to keep doing that is to have the successfully community pay its share of costs. We all benefit from it. (And it's Nicole and dimes for the big players)

Whether we like it or not, whether we use Windows or not, Microsoft is going to insist on adding the tax whether the PC comes shipped with Windows or not. This is illegal bundling, Microsoft has essentially ignored prior rulings, and it's pretty much a certainty the courts will be fine with this.

Not sure I care about the gambling overall, but I do care they allow things like betting on wild fires; literally creating incentives for the creation of wildfires.