Tech people love to classify things, including companies, as hardware or software. The really successful companies recongize that neither works without the other, there are a lot of opportunities that come with making both, and customers value not having to chase down various suppliers when they have a problem.

Also, anything sounds big when you put it in gallons. Doesn't sound so big when you mention that's 92 acre feet, the amount used by less than 20 acres / 8 hectares of alfalfa per year. Or when you mention that a typical *closed loop* 1GW nuclear reactor uses 6-20 billion gallons of cooling water per year (once-through uses 200-500 billion gallons, though most of that is returned, whereas closed loop evaporates it)

I don't think it has anything to do with that. As soon as I saw the headline, my mind went "cohort study". And sure enough, yeah, it's a cohort study. Remember that big thing about how wine improves your health, and then it turned out to just be that people who drink wine tend to be wealthier and thus have better health outcomes? And also, the "sick quitter" effect, where people who are in worse health would tend to stop drinking, so you ended up with extra sick people in the non-wine group? Same sort of thing. This study says they're controlling for a wide range of factors, but I'd put money on it just being the same sort of spurious correlations.

RCS isn't a good standard. It was so crappy that Google essentially bought it, added the minimum necessary to turn it into an acceptable messaging platform and made their proprietary version (as opposed to the original GSM's proprietary version) their messaging platform. Er, their fourth (fifth?) messaging platform.

Why? If she's an experienced speaker I suspect the VP of strategic alliances for a multinational private equity holding company is used to talking to a very specific type of audience. We even have a phrase for that that comes from a similar type of speaker: "preaching to the choir."

The real hilarity is that someone from a humanities college thought she'd be a good pick.

That, by its very definition, is an area where AI should have very limited use

The definition of AI is essentially:

"to proceed on the basis of the conjecture that every aspect of learning or any other feature of intelligence can in principle be so precisely described that a machine can be made to simulate it."

So no, by definition, the stuff those humanities students do is a prime target. We used to think that the creative humanities stuff was going to be really hard, maybe the ultimate goal for AI, but it turns out it's not.

They've created nothing new, just looked around an found markets they could cannibalize.

Ah, they've added competition. Terrible.

Many printers, including Bambu Labs', don't have endstop sensors. They run to the end and detect the stepper stall. They're direct driven by the stepper motors and don't have the power to "strip belts or cogs."

"I just put my models on a usb drive then plug said drive into the printer."

You must have a lot of spare time on your hands.

"It works great locally" - Um, no it doesn't?

They've made a nice easy-to-use ecosystem. For $400 you can get a P1S that supports adding an AMS, auto bed leveling, enclosed-chamber printing, high precision, high print speeds, and 300/100C nozzle/plate temps, and has an easy cloud print service and a robust ecosystem of models you can just download and print with no extra config straight from the app.

But yeah, their behavior is increasingly entering bad-actor territory. I wonder how long it'll be before they lock entry-level printers into their branded filament?

Hopefully. Nothing livens up driving like that surge of adrenaline you get in front of a long line of cars when you've stalled your cranky old beater and aren't sure it's going to start again. Something to provide the smell of a burnt clutch would be great too.

I rememeber when I was a kid my father telling me about how they used to stick cards in their spokes so their bikes sounded like they had motors, but then they realized it was slowing them down and stopped.

Nostalgia sells. Even better, it sells best to the people with most of the money.

Of course they are. People who know that the team bus got in late last night, Joe stubbed his toe, whatever. Or just "insiders" who actually know something about the sport and aren't just betting on their favourite team to win the way they do every weekend.

Most betting on things that aren't completely random is going to have a strong element of fleecing the casuals. The actual insider betting (and trading) is a gradient with a somewhat arbitrary threshold too.