Good lord, we agree on something.

Anyway I think the issue is that there are idiots everywhere, and a lot of people who jump on bandwagons and are too proud to jump off once the evidence comes out it's a scam. And while I hate the idea personally, it sounds worse than flying, I would assume a lot of people look at the transportation speeds involved, and just assume it would be successful for that reason, especially in an era where a significant number of people believe America's railroads collapsed due to "flying", when the story is way, way, more complicated (essentially a systemic shock from all sides, over regulation, poorly thought out taxes that weren't applied to rival transportation systems, poor management, and out of control dumbass unions. A perfect storm of crappiness.)

The bubble will need to last 5 years before there's any chance of new players.

40 years ago, sure, you might have been right: silicon fabrication was still a relatively cheap industry to get into. Leaving aside environmental concerns (our old friend MOS Technology of the 6502 managed to end up as a superfund site...) it was quite simply a lot easier to make foundaries that worked on a micrometer scale than on today's nanometers. Gordon Moore said that while his eponymous law predicted a doubling of transistors per IC each year, he also saw a doubling of how much it cost to build a new foundary.

If it were cheap, even in countries that already have fewer regulatory hurdles, someone would have build new factories anyway. It's not like there wasn't any profit in memory production until a month ago. They're not commodity devices.

The article talks about a rise in temperature of half a degree causing a societal collapse over multiple centuries.

By comparison the Earth has heated by 1.1-1.2C in the last 150 years and is still rising, currently at a rate of about 0.2C per decade.

So, meteoric rise vs slight rise within the Earth's usual temperature fluctuations. This should tell you two things:

1. The current rise is, indeed, unnatural, and not due to the Earth's usual changes.
2. This is going to cause a hell of a lot more damage than one civilization smaller than the size of a typical European city collapsing.

> * rise of AI that takes control

I think that's unlikely, but I think the AI crap we're currently following suggests a different path.

The LLM fad is most probably going to eat itself, but take down a lot of things with it.

Let's take a look at it: We had the World Wide Web.

The web was built over a period of a couple of decades maybe (by the mid-2000s it could be considered the primary source of knowledge for everyone in the developed world), with virtually everyone switching to it en-mass. Newspapers went online and closed their paper versions. Magazines closed, to be replaced by websites that were vaguely related. People who once might have written books now wrote blogs or maintained websites with information that was dear to them. Manuals went online. Programmers I think know this more than most, it's easier to search for "Java list to array" than it is to actually go to a physical book and, even with the help of an index, find the method that does that. (Spoiler: Java's version is an ugly hack! I wish Java had kept the original versioning scheme as that'd have made it easier for them to make a Java 2 that didn't rely on the way Java 1 does things, breaking some backward compatibility but implementing things properly. Anyway, I digress.)

So then the first hit came, social media. Not a major hit, and not an obvious problem at first as the first social media sites were glorified blogging platforms. And that was fine, except one of these, Facebook, felt that it was in its best interests to hinder search engines from working with it, which undermined the web.

Then the next hit, the iPhone and Android. Again, not initially a major problem, but over time they encouraged massive amounts of content to be locked behind "apps", with any web interface being a third class option or worse.

Then Facebook came up again, they REALLY didn't like Google. How could they kill Google? By making normal content unsearchable, not just content posted behind Facebook's registration wall. So again, not caring about the web, they came up with a scheme to encourage everyone to post everything as videos. They lied about their own metrics, claiming it showed videos caused a crazy amount of engagement, and the rest of the content providers saw this, and put autoplaying videos on every web page, very often (as was Facebook's intention) without any readable text. Google's search couldn't actually search the videos at that time, so it undermined Google.

Meanwhile... Google was fucking around too. They intentionally made their own search engine less useful, noting that their competitors were apparently just copying them rather than trying to make their own search engines more useful than Google's. So now a Google search is very, very, unlikely to give you relevant answers without a lot of adding quotes to things.

Finally, LLMs. LLMs are the nail in the coffin. They remove any incentive to post anything on the Internet aside from documentation, advertising copy, and rants. There is decreasing incentive at this point to post anything you'd be paid to write or just to make the world a better place. Whether it's journalism, fiction, research, or even a Wikipedia page, fewer and fewer people will ever read what you have to say, but an LLM will, combine it with eleventeen other sources, and produce a summary that's inaccurate and dubious but is "good enough" for people looking for a quick answer.

So what we're left with are LLMs that will tell you things based upon the latest information as of 2025. They'll tell you the latest information as of 2025 today. And they'll tell you the latest information as of 2025 in five years. And in ten years, unless someone's willing to employ an army of researchers whose sole job is to write well researched and accurate articles to be ingested by an LLM, they'll be useless.

But so will the web.

And we don't have a replacement for the web, which is unfortunate because we don't have a replacement for the things we replaced using the web.

And as should be obvious, that means a world without information.

And I can't see how our civilization survives that.

Biden doesn't have dementia. He was showing signs of normal age related decline, sure, as would anyone his age. But his handlers wouldn't have let him out in public, even to speak from a teleprompter, if he had it. As someone who's lived with two people with two different types, I can attest that if he had it, it'd have rather more obvious than "mumbling", which isn't a symptom anyway. (And reading the transcript of the debate where his mumbling was *such* an issue, I think it's rather obvious he's thinking clearly throughout.)

The only neurological condition Biden had was his long term stuttering issue, which he's always had. Unless you're suggesting he had dementia in the 1980s, when his reputation for "gaffes" started, I think the argument he had it during his presidency is a thin one.

I find it all the more ludicrous Biden's opponents keep bringing this up as some sort of gotcha when their own guy very obviously has a major issue. Does Trump have dementia? Can't say! But certainly his constant incoherent streams-of-consciousness speeches raise alarm bells, and are far closer to what I saw in my FiL than anything Biden said, and Trump's actions appear to be substantial enough that his doctors are interested, hence the constant MRIs etc. And Biden's opponents are the ones that would fight to the death to condemn anyone who suggests St Reagan should have not run a second term.

As for orange suits, Biden followed the law. Trump's only getting away with what he's doing because of a scared Republican congress and a SCOTUS that's made it clear they believe in the supreme executive theory, despite that being literally unamerican, a rejection of the entire foundation of this country.

It most certainly did. The summary even discusses it.

When your party's leader is against putting the word in your party's title, and when he executes party higher-ups who consider themselves socialist, it's fair to say "no true scotsman" doesn't come into it.

Jesus, would it kill you to read even a Wikipedia summary of what the Nazis were and did? Or are you too afraid about what you might find out?

No, they didn't, but they weren't socialist either.

The original party was a diverse coalition of shitty people, some of whom considered themselves socialists because socialism isn't, outside of the Americas, considered a "bad word", especially in a Europe that was having trouble adjusting to a world war and unfettered capitalism during the industrial revolution. Workers rights are not a bad thing. It had, by that point, been watered down to practically a feel good term, the way "Freedom" is in the US.

Anywho, the socialists within the party pushed to have "Socialist" put in the name. Hitler opposed this. He was out numbered.

Then during the Night of the Long Knives, Hitler had the entire self-described socialist wing of his party purged. Its leaders were executed.

TL;DR - the party wasn't a socialist party, it had that in the name for historical reasons, Hitler hated it but by the time the party rose to power it was too late to do anything about it. But he did do something about the socialists in his party, and it wasn't pretty.

Most likely Firefox will see and change direction. I do think though it'd be ironic if "Thing that relies on X destroys X and then inevitably dies as a result" ends up happening to an Internet browser if people are leaving the browser it's based upon because of the AI shit forced into the latter.

Inertia. Took me several years once streaming had taken off and we pretty much exclusively used our Roku and never used our Dish Network box to persuade the rest of my family that the $60-70/mo we were paying for Dish was a waste of money.

I also suspect a fair number have it for the same reason as their landline, as a reliable back up in case of emergencies. I had to demonstrate our antenna was fine for getting local news stations multiple times to deal with this argument.

I'm pretty sure most have some form of IPTV. Comcast even gave us a free box for their version. And honestly, usable gigabit speeds are available over coax, what's the need for fiber? Fiber is over-rated. If the use case is streaming, gigabit is ridiculously over-spec, you could stream 20 movies simultaneously at Blu-ray quality including all the unnecessary uncompressed audio streams for every language included on that disc all at once and still be able to browse the Internet while watching all 20 of them.

There's probably some use case out there that needs that amount of bandwidth, but by god it isn't "replacing cable".

> Where is your centralized TV Guide that allows you to browse and stream on demand as easily as cable does?

On the "Search" menu of the Roku?

I assume the Amazon Stick, Apple TV The Streaming Box, and whatever Google's pushing these days, have the same feature?

> Remember when Cable TV offered an ad-free television viewing experience, for a monthly subscription fee?

No, I don't. Nor do most people reading this.

In fact, I don't know what country you're talking about, but in the US virtually all TV channels - the subscription channels like HBO excepted - in the US provided over cable TV have had ads. That's because cable TV started purely as an alternative to antenna TV to relay the affiliates of the major networks to places that had poor reception. Over time cable-only TV channels were added to the line up, and some started off without ads, but most quickly included ads as they developed. MTV and CNN have always had ads, from day #1, and they're the two channels most people think of as the OG cable-only channels, although of course they weren't the first, but their predecessors were never as significant or as influential.

This "Cable TV was once Ad free" thing is largely a myth - I'm not saying there were never ad-free channels in the cable line up, but it was so early in cable TV's "More than just the broadcast channel" line up it barely is worth mentioning. Those channels played no part in the development and popularization of the format. Most cable TV growth happened long after the last free ad free channel adopted ads.

No, that would be you.

Some people are so obsessed with how great AI is in their mind they can't take it when others point out obvious problems. You would be one of those people. You need to recognize the technology isn't what it's sold as, and you shouldn't be worshipping a technology like a God anyway.

Except the Amiga. Obviously. That was perfect.

Will you fuck off with this shit?

You car fuckers impose your stupid driving-only life on more or less the entire country, then pretend everyone in America likes it that way, despite the fact most Americans who have visited Europe or NYC (thus experiencing a real city) suddenly realize how great walkable cities are, and then you have the audacity to pretend those arguing in favor of building more walkable cities are somehow forcing you to sell your home and live in city.

No, you can continue to live in your bland personalityless suburban HOA home for as long as you want. You can shag your car's exhaust pipe every morning, we don't care. You can pretend you live in the "Country" because there's a few fields of cows between your ugly neighborhood and the office where you work. Knock yourself out.

We just want to be able to live in a real city, rather than that. Because we don't like it. Nobody sane who's lived in a real city does.