That's just not true. It could be sheer luck by placing the right bet at the right time, creating a rigged system of legal financial fraud, or maybe systematically destroying organisations by leveraged acquisitions and extracting assets. Making money at that scale often does not align with creating value in society.

Well, you just proved his point.

Quite a lot. The CCP has a membership of 98 million so you can guess the scale of these edicts by using that as a starting point.

That's a silly line to take. The US government didn't take Snowden to Russia. He escaped to there via Hong Kong.

It's called making a *deal* with the devil. Of course you get a benefit, but at what cost? Ask the Japanese and German rail industry on how they feel.

It also answers correctly in Bard now -

---
The other months of the year are March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, and December.

The year begins with January and ends with December.

I guess the whole point for using a NN like ChatGPT is to learn from multiple sources and then generate content based on what was learned. Of they can pinpoint specific content in the response, it seems problematic both on a legal/copyright/IP level and a practical level.

>I can see the attractiveness of quickly asking questions about general day-to-day things and getting a 90% accurate answer.
Which hey, it makes the entirety of google obsolete.

Google gives you way more than a 90% accurate answer. It gives you the most relevant results with a, let's say, 90% probability you will get the 100% correct answer in each one of the top 10 links. You then have the agency to choose the best answer.

ChatGPT takes away your agency in choosing which one is the best, so it must perform much much better than Google for people to trust it.

The Smile site is on a separate domain because they save on paying click-through affiliates, which link to the main site. It's probably cost neutral for Amazon based on the savings they can make on that front.

Now, my guess is that there something changed in the commercial model and this no longer makes financial sense for them.

> "The Cloud" means site redundancy, multiple backups, high bandwidth, true. It means staff on site 24/7 rather than on call. It means constantly monitoring all the data center sites, replacing running redundant parts before they fail without visible downtime. Continuous backups and the ability to roll back or otherwise recover from the inevitable attacks that occur.

For smaller organisations, they wouldn't have the staff to handle application or service issues 24/7 anyway. So having infrastructure that can handle issues 24/7 improves availability, but doesn't guarantee it as the gap is in the application and service layers. Like applications on EC2 instances with EBS volumes running out of space; AWS isn't going to fix that for you.

In this segment, the real draw of the cloud is that it enabled real-time scaling for workloads, spot workloads, and PaaS capabilities that would be very costly for small orgs to implement in-house properly.

On the contrary it's you that have no clue and are spouting talking points.

Most of healthcare costs are for treatment and procedures that are costly with big implications to your health. Things like cancer treatment, transplants, childbirth, hip replacements, emergency surgery, etc.

It's not just choosing between Aspirin and Ibuprofen mate. If you get poor care for these, it means you either result in a very poor in quality of life, or you die. Which is why the whole medical field is regulated, because the market didn't work and lots of people died due to substandard care and malpractice.

>There's absolutely variation in what people will tolerate, and substitution of quality of goods.

Really, are you a rational economic actor when your life is on the line? That's the reason why the market inevitably breaks down in healthcare. I'm not saying that a market never works in healthcare, just that it will inevitably fail when it is solely based on laissez-faire principals.

>(Also, it's not that something is "inelastic to demand", it's the supply or demand itself that is inelastic. Specifically, the quantity supplied or demanded does not change significantly as a function of market price.)

You're just nitpicking here as you know full well what the meaning is here. Specifically, when we're talking about elasticity in healthcare, quantity demanded or supplied is for most part inelastic to price. Hence the supply curve shifts, exacting a much higher price to the market participants due nature of the goods/services supplied and humans' innate needs conflicting with market principals.

This is a failure of the market. There are certain things that are inelastic to demand, healthcare being the main one. Trying to make it work with market principals always produce undesirable results and distortions in the economy. As advanced nations, we just have to accept that the market is not the solution to everything, and we need common sense approaches to temper the excesses that market conditions create.

The Google search hate was mainly funded by Microsoft when it tried for years to come up with viable competitors to Google products and failed miserably. We're just hearing the dying echos of it now.

When the lockdowns were at its height and in the news, that's really fine. I'm sure nobody has any problems with mentioning the unhappiness caused by the pandemic control measures. We are a reasonably free society with a reasonably free press, that is often introspective and self-critical when neccessary.

However, "at a time of over 100 million covid deaths in America" is a complete fabrication. That would be 1 in 4 Americans dead due to Covid, which is obviously not true. I can't support that type of lying.