There's no doubt that AI is developing into a useful tool -- for people who understand its limitations and how long it is going to take to work the bugs out. But people have a long track record of getting burned by not understanding the gap between promise and delivery and, in retrospect, missing the point.

I think we should take a lesson from the history of the dot com boom and following bust. A lot of people got burned by their foolish enthusiasm, but in the end the promise was delivered, and then some. People just got the timescale for delivering profits wrong, and in any case their plans for getting there were remarkably unimaginative, e.g., take a bricks and mortar business like pet supplies and do exactly that on the Internet. They by in large completely missed all the *new* ways of making money ubiquitous global network access created.

I think in the case of AI, everybody knows a crash is coming. In fact they're planning on it. Nobody expects there to be hundreds or even dozens of major competitors in twenty years. They expect there to be one winner, an Amazon-level giant, with maybe a handful of also-rans subsisting off the big winner's scraps; tolerated because they at least in theory provide a legal shield to anti-trust actions.

And in this winner-take-all scenario, they're hoping to be Jeff Bezos -- only far, far more so. Bezos owns about 40% of online retail transactions. If AI delivers on its commercial promise, being the Jeff Bezos of *that* will be like owning 40% of the labor market. Assuming, as seems likely, that the winning enterprise is largely unencumbered by regulation and anti-trust restrictions, the person behind it will become the richest, and therefore the most powerful person in history. That's what these tech bros are playing for -- the rest of us are just along for the ride.

But you are leaving out the difference in fertility. The fertility rate of the UK, which as you noted is a population dominated by native britons who trace their ancestry on the island back a millennium or more, is 1.4 live births per woman. The replacement rate is 2.1. In a hundred years the UK will have a smaller population than Haiti.

Because under a true system of sovereignty, people wouldn't be allowed to vote for a Muslim mayor.

I'd be absolutely shocked if they did.

DRM has been a problem for TiVo pretty much since digital cable became a thing. TiVo managed to squeak out a longer shelf life as a DVR because they kissed the ring, but they had to go through all kinds of hoops to do it. Amongst the reasons the GPLv3 exists is because of what Stallman called the "TiVo-ization" effect, where the GPL components were released, but the useful extensions weren't, and they couldn't because they were the components that allowed the TiVo to work despite the DRM.

In practice, I will concede that HDCP has been mostly-seamless, most of the time, for most users...but I don't think TiVo is going to play games with the HDCP licensing and enforcement to then allow timeshifting. I submit that there are issues on both sides with doing so. On one hand, what you're suggesting is the ability to timeshift content that is inherently on-demand. TiVo's popularity was entirely due to making it possible to timeshift linear broadcasts in a way that was far more functional than VHS. Having a TiVo that would accept an HDMI signal from a Fire Stick would be mostly-pointless...unless the user is intending to archive a video due to concerns about takedown...and it's not like TiVo would roll the dice on a device that would be a lightning rod for litigation, if not actually-legal ones, if TiVo's HDCP license got revoked, they would either neuter everyone's hardware, or they'd be signing up for a court case they have no chance of winning.

The alternative exists; HDMI capture cards are plentiful, and there is plenty of software that can record from it. Screen recording software is also super plentiful, and examples of these things which also manage to play fast-and-loose with DRM are readily available on the market.

So, TiVo would be caught in the middle, and the liability is well below whatever they would make in revenue...it's certainly not worth it to them.

At its peak, TiVo was a household name...and in hindsight, it probably would have been possible to keep it going with relatively small amounts of effort.

For starters, they weren't all that great to their base - the folks with the lifetime subscriptions. They were the early-adopters and the enthusiasts, but they ran into issues once the lifetime subscriptions were tied to the analog boxes and the cable companies stopped offering that service...in such cases, the customers had to choose, and at the very least, some of them were unlikely to choose to continue with TiVo. It probably didn't help that some of those boxes required dial-up connections to get guide data, and they weren't exactly upgradeable to wi-fi.

From there, cable companies competed with first-party DVR boxes...which everyone hated because their UI sucked and was slow, but it came bundled with cable service and the cable companies actively supported and marketed them, so lots of people used them instead. Had TiVo offered an onboarding service, where TiVo would get a CableCARD on the users' behalf and send it to them preconfigured, that may have helped justify the purchase.

TiVo was already at least some living rooms; they could have gone toe-to-toe with Roku and Amazon Fire Sticks...and I believe the later models *did* allow Netflix streaming and such, but it was too little, too late, and TiVo didn't have retail space in the same way Roku did. For sure, Roku would have won on price, but it likely would have been possible for them to have leveraged their brand recognition.

Finally, the nail in the coffin for TiVo was that they didn't lobby to retain the legal mandate for CableCARDs. I had a SiliconDust HD Homerun Prime, and I loved it for the time I could use it, but my cable company wouldn't give me a CableCARD when I changed my service, because they didn't have to.

It's completely unsurprising that the pioneer in the space lost their spot, but they absolutely could have owned the market with a bit better marketing and availability.

That may be true to a certain extent, but I submit two counterbalances to this:

1. VPS workloads aren't usually helped by GPU acceleration; even if DigitalOcean or Hetzner got these datacenters in a fire sale, they'd still be sitting on a pile of GPUs they would either have to leverage or sell.

2. While VPS companies will undoubtedly continue to have their workload quantities increase over time, if the AI tech bubble bursts, they are likely to end up being on the working end of that at some level, too. I'm sure they aren't going anywhere, but even if revenue is down 10%, it's going to be a tough sell to get leadership to think about making an investment of that size when it's unclear whether next year will *also* have a 10% loss of revenue.

Is if they confirmed your age by a behavioral maturity test. AI could monitor posts, and if it figures out that someone with an emotional age of 15 or older wouldn't have posted such a thing, you're cut off.

Art and cultural activity is a major sector of the US economy. It adds a staggering 1.17 *trillion* dollars to the US GDP. However that's hard to see because for the most part it's not artists who receive this money.

The actual creative talent this massive edifice is built upon earns about 1.4% of the revenue generated. The rest goes to companies whose role in the system is managing capital and distributing. Of that 1.4% that goes to actual creators, the lion's share goes to a handful of superstars -- movie stars and music stars and the like. This is not as unfair as it sounds, as it reflects the superstar's ability to earn money for the companies they distribute through, but the long tail of struggling individual artists play a crucial role in artistic innovation and creativity. Behind every Elvis there's a Big Mama Thornton, and armies of gospel singers who may have made a record or two but never made a living.

We can't run this giant economic juggernaut off a handful of superstars with AI slop filling in the gaps in demand. But maybe we'll give that a try.

I can only assume that for the past decade, James has been ignored, or terrible at his job. Every Adobe product has gotten progressively worse to use, forums are filled with bug reports that get ignored release after release, and the increase in system requirements do not reflect improvements in functionality.

Whether because Adobe didn't like what he had to say, or they decided not to listen to him, it's completely unsurprising that he lost his job.

The folks offering $500K/year for AI experts aren't going to take anyone who makes the claim on a resume, they're almost guaranteed to be looking to poach someone at OpenAI or Google. Practically speaking, they're looking to benefit from the experience that those companies paid for...and James doesn't have it.

On the upswing, odds are pretty good that James will have a job in short order, helping to deal with the fallout of 'vibe coders' who don't know how to do real-world testing. He's probably going to run into some combination of age discrimination and salary discrimination (no way he's working for $60K if he has 25 years at Adobe), but once the messes start being too big to ignore, I'm pretty sure he'll be able to become a project manager that helps direct fixes for deployed code that didn't get actual-QA. The need is most definitely there, it'll just take a bit more time to prove to the brass that he's more valuable to the company than the MBAs that are looking at their now-spherical product for more corners to cut.

Well, I think we did 'simple math' when we thought that, rather than 'real-world-math'. If my cable bill is $150/month for 100 channels, that's $1.50/channel. Since I only watch maybe 20 of them at most, 20*1.5 = $30/month for the 20 channels I watch. Who wouldn't want that?

The problem is that channel costs don't divide evenly. ESPN is very expensive ($8 or more of one's cable bill goes for just this channel), while Home Shopping Network and QVC have historically paid the cable companies for inclusion in the lineup. Public Access stations are both legal requirements in many jurisdictions, and the content is paid for by whoever submits it for broadcast...and again, roughly nobody would include it in their custom lineup.

Finally, there *is* a baseline amount of cost for the last-mile distribution. Whether it's got 1 channel or 1,000 channels, the infrastructure needs to exist. I'm not making any excuses for Comcast here, but someone needs to pay the right-of-way to the townships for the wire runs, the backend equipment costs money, the staff to service it, and the staff to answer the phone for CSR requests all cost something. Streaming services generally get away with chat-only support and don't have any wires to run.

So...while I'm not calling cable a good deal by any stretch, I *am* at least acknowledging that a-la-carte math would be something closer to $30 infrastructure + $10/month ESPN + probably-something-closer-to-$3/channel for the ones with actual-content, making that beautiful $30/month bill something closer to $80/month in practice.

Personally, I think that there *does* need to be some sort of court case that uses United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc. (1948) as precedent to decouple distribution from production, which would probably do more to solve the cost issues than anything else.

Actually in China significantly more students choose to pursue degrees in technology, engineering,or business than in the US â" degrees which qualify them for specific jobs after graduation. So the process of college education becoming more vocationally oriented and less about training intellectual skills has advanced even more advanced in China than it is here.

China grants very few liberal arts degrees and its vocational degree programs have minimal or no liberal arts content. In the US an engineering or business degree program requires substantial liberal arts content to be degree accredited. So an engineering student graduating from a US program has had many semesters of training in critical reading and thinking, challenging claims with original sources, and crafting persuasive arguments in areas where opinions differ.

These are skills the Chinese government is not eager to put in the hands of its citizens, so we really ought to question just how âoeuselessâ those non-vocational intellectual skills really are. There are clearly people here whose priorities for education are more aligned with Chinaâ(TM)s â" inculcating respect for authority, obedience to tradition as described by authority, and job skills useful to authorities. In other words for them education isnâ(TM)t about empowering the students, itâ(TM)s about forming a class of compliant worker bees.

Providing 1.3 million round trip airfares between Houston and Washington DC for Texans who want to see the shuttle.

Or ... issue the citation to the passenger who called the ride, and let him negotiation reimbursement for the fine and insurance costs with Waymo. I guarantee Waymo would fix the bug or perhaps even *ask* to be regulated rather than rely on this loophole.

Why burden the taxpayer with finding a solution to the consequences of early adopting a new technology? If you *choose* to summon a robotaxi, then you're responsble for the consequences of that choice. If you don't like it, then demand the company sort those out before you use them.

This is so unnecessary, I wonder whether this is some kind of social engineering operation being sold as a "service" to landlords.

Supercars this fast have tires that last less than fifteen minutes, perhaps eighty miles traveled on the track of you're lucky. And since the wear isn't linear, if you go just a little bit faster, you might only get a minute or two at the speeds this car goes before you have to change all the tires, which will set you back $40,000.

The point of such a thing is the same as one of those suborbital tourist space flights. The point is to *have had* the experience, which is too brief to be practically useful.