The sort of people who could turn Google into a profitable innovation powerhouse no longer work at Google. Google lives and dies on how tightly they can hold onto their existing advertising empire. That's all they've got now and it is all they will ever be.

Not the worst billionaire fashion choice.

There will be winners and losers. And I don't think any of today's companies are necessarily going to be the AI leader 10 years from now.

Who will lose the most are the middle class with retirement investments that are mismanaged and put into these unstable toxic investments. And potentially bail outs for financial and chip companies when the market corrects disastrously.

Everything as a service has been the dream for the billionaire class for a long time. Creating a dependency for end-users (often called "consumers") is viewed as the path to stability and profit for a company. Having folks pay every month for health insurance, medication, vitamins, smartphone service, cable TV, internet access, streaming services, etc.

$99 billion in cash reserves will probably insulated them from most of the AI bubble pop.

Your best engineers will be AuDHD, and AuDHD folk don't do well in these sorts of synthetic tests.

I can code in 20+ languages for over 12 different OS', write code that's good enough for CERN to run for particle accelerator data collection for a decade, have accelerated systems by an order of magnitude by understanding the poem space better than their previous engineers, but I am abysmal at exam style settings.

The software industry is riddled with SEs who write abysmal code but can pass a coding test easily. They're the folk that you have always needed to reject but didn't because they ticked a box.

None of the junior people can pass our interviews. And none of the seniors want a full time job babysitting an code-generation machine. Modern AI has turned coding into the equivalent of a mindless factory job watching things go by on the conveyor belt.

It's really tough to measure and interpret results, I don't fault anyone for struggling to have perfect clarity in outcomes and business results. But part of the problem with the corporate world is an unwillingness to question their metrics and call bullshit on assumptions that cannot be supported by evidence.

Using a definition for success that is not outcome-based turns out to be a giant scam!

That's a relief, I can retire early then.

I don't recall suggesting this. Perhaps you have me confused with someone else.

I'm not Steve Wozniak. If I had his money, I would have retired earlier. (see above)

I think a radical leftwing movement would be unstoppable if they followed Mao's playbook. Because Americans have no defense against it.
I would be against it though. I think the means matter as much as the ends.

I go off road, but I try to minimize my impact. Roads themselves also destroy the environment, there's no perfect solution so we can just do the best we can.

Club body-on-frame trucks are the only trucks.

Heh. Supply chain infiltration has occurred numerous times in history without ever passing through the adversarial nation.
There are ways to improve confidence in your supply chain. But it is difficult to completely eliminate the possibility of state actors, even in a supply chain that is closed in your own nation.

I really care about who owns the soil underneath the factory my computer was built at.

Few servers in orbit around Earth are impacted by this flaw.