Based on what? What makes something wrong or right in production providing the toolkit works and exists to allow it to be widely adopted and mass produced, and the end goal of the device is achieved?

Exactly. About the only thing that matters for "in production" is "meets requirements", whatever those may be. It's pretty rare that one of those is "squeeze the maximum possible performance out of a single-cycle multi-hundred MHz MCU". Sure for mass, low cost consumer products, it's worth pending a lot to save 10 cents on the MCU but it isn't for most of us.

I've seen similar complaints before: "Arduino has no place in production,

I've seen that too. I now point them to Finder PLC. It' an industrial unit that is basically an arduino with relays etc in a nice box.

Dude.

Back in the 80s I was running basic on a machine with a tenth of the RAM and less than a thousandth of the computing power. It did not "confound the learning process". These days I also often use the Arduino environment because the performance is adequate for me needs and so it's a waste of time to slog through the datasheet and do it all by hand.

Who cares if they are a bit different from python? I don't write C++ on an MCU in the same way I'm writing it on the server because I'm writing very different things.

This really sounds like nerd snobbery to me. Modern microcontrollers are so ludicrously powerful now many people dipping into them won't need to scratch the surface of the performance on offer. And that's ok.

record ambient conversations illegally

Only illegal outside of single-party consent states.

"Ambient conversations" include (and some would argue consist exclusively of) conversations in which you're not a party.

There is a legitimate use for people with certain disabilities, but sadly there's no way to use them for legitimate purposes without Meta having the opportunity to piggy-back on the usage and abuse them for illegitimate purposes.

One word: Meta.

The very first line, before the fine article even begins, says that it's a guest post by Henry Cohn, so the summary is simply false.

However, it's because I believe many great consumer technology leaps were driven by porn: photography, home video, the internet, the smart phone, etc.

The smartphone??

I mean it was convincingly invented, if not widely used by IBM in 1993. It was made to look very impressive (albeit wired) in the late 90s by Olivetti. And of course PDAs approaching from the other end being more computer and less data. J2ME phones came out which were a pile of shit. Maybe you could get a shit game on them. I don't really know if Blackberries count: they were messaging first but did they have any generality beyond that? There was of course the legendary N900, and some impressive (for the time) yet deeply wonky Symbian devices.Then in 2007, Apple came out with a rather good dumbphone which was turned into a smartphone by Cydia, which Apple then got in on the game a year later (which is a bit weird if you think about it).

None of those were porn. It was all about connectivity and messaging and nerdy shit especially businessnerd shit (except the N900 which was real nerd shit). Then fashion, then just plain old usefulness.

I mean that's not to say people don't watch porn on a phone on a plane (shit head in 23A knows what I'm talking about you utter wanker, but not in that case literally thank god), but I don't there's a convincing case that porn had a significant role. Pocket computers were obviously useful, even more so with a data connection, and people had been trying to get them working for years before it finally took off.

Is this true for animated films too?

Yes.

What about hybrid live action and animated?

Yes.

Animated films that are CGI based rather than hand drawn/painted?

Yes.

Hand drawn that are computer "painted"?

Yes.

How do you propose that this would work? Would Flock have access to each police department's database of active cases? That would be a cure worse than the disease.

In the hard sciences, one usually is happy about advancements, not about keeping it secret until one publishes oneself.

Haha, no.

If you don't publish papers, you don't get a job and so you won't be doing hard science anymore due to an imperative to eat and find shelter. So no, no one is happy if someone takes their mostly complete results and scoops them to publication. It's also why that's widely regarded as what's technically known as a "dick move".

A t shirt?

Maybe a jumper. Maybe when a light jacket at the lower end. But a thick jacket at 12 degrees? Nope!

Wait what?

The nighttime lows in SF were 12C. That's think jacket weather???

I think Americans now spend so much time in climate controlled buildings that they've forgotten what weather is like.

Just wait until they connect it up to a Robin Hood game.

Training these models is incredibly expensive. In fact it's so expensive that there is no viable economic model to do so. As such, their options are either to drastically slow down the amount of new models trained or to go bankrupt. This is just a nice whitewashing of that. It remains to be seen if even using their models can be profitable, but we know that with the cost of training the next one they can't be.

It can, lots of countries, especially America regulate things outside their borders.

Laws can be enforced against local subsidiaries or any foreign executive who happens to wander into an area you have an extradition agreement with. Or in Americas case, any country you can successfully invade to kidnap someone. And in Putin's case anywhere you can get an assassination squad in. Also Israel's Mossad unit is notorious for plausible deniable foreign enforcement.

This isn't a question of should, it's a question of what can physical be done.