If they are harming bigger billionares, at that.

It's not dead, it just smells funny...

I don't know where that popular is. I don't know anyone that cares about 3D movies the slightest bit, except the one guy who used to ramble about the great potential within, but never knew of any examples of that potential being put to worthy use.

I'm sure there are people who enjoy the spectacular colourful visuals offered by Tron. Otoh there's also people who enjoy the spectacular colourful visuals offered by dropping acid. Neither of these have anything to do with what makes a good movie though. For an actual good movie, 3D is a distraction. It takes away any subtlety of what is going on, there's no room observation, introspection, and wondering about the masterwork you are witnessing; it all just becomes and excercise of spoon-feeding. For a regular run-of-the-mill Hollywood flick otoh it might just distract you from the fact that there's no plot, no dialogue, no acting, much less so camerawork, lighting, scening, blocking and so on. Every one of them has literally the exact same soundtrack... No nothing of what makes a passing grade movie to be found. And this is why 3D is still alive. It's a substitute for substance.

My comment was a jab at the fact that our recent 3D mania was not the first one.

It failed this time exactly for the same reason it did the previous times. It's a novelty that adds no lasting value to anything. There's only so many times you can be bothered to see random junk popping out of the screen. You've seen it once, you've seen it all. And then the reasons you list come to play and everyone discovers that while 3D isn't in any way better than 2D, it is in multiple ways worse. And they walk away from the nothingburger it is.

...maybe enough time has passed that 3d could be tried again?

If the Chinese EVs get in, they'll wipe the floor with the US car market. Walmart is getting ready.

Walmart itself might certainly plan for an EV fleet, too.

And the gambit here might be that they are uniquely positioned to become the replacement for a gas station. They have good presence everywhere, they're already hooked up to reasonable power, they are one of the common places to where people actually take the trips to, and maybe most importantly, they are the one place where people don't mind the 30min charging time, because they will be busy doing the groceires.

Thanks y'all for the Funny votes, but I did not mean this as funny. This is literally how our society and journalism functions.

We live in a time and age where our markets based economy, or at least the one that is declared as such, is failing more and more people. Since it is now more and more difficult to argue that said economy brings prosperity, it must therefore be defended with a moral argument. If it doesn't make things better for people, at least it makes the people themselves better.

Because if the markets and economy should go undefended, it might happen that the people might get the idea to replace it with something different, and also replace the elites running it and profiting from it. And that would be a bad thing, at least from the viewpoint of said elites.

In this our markets based economy, or at least the one that is declared as such, it is the job of economists and think tanks and such to defend this economy. And TFA is a good example of that.

There's the good old quote: "The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convicing the world he didn't exist". Well the greatest trick the ruling class ever pulled was convincing us they didn't exist either. There's also no such thing as class war, neither does rich people meet and discuss how to advance their position - the latter is a conspiracy theory, in fact.

The problems of regular people are not newsworthy. Regular people can go and fuck themselves.

Fuck Everything, We're Doing Five Folds!

The Chinese are spending a lot less than the US; and are getting essentially the same results, if not better. Compared to the US they also have a lot more money to put into it, if they should want to. There's nothing unreasonable about that.

The difference between the Chinese state driven approach and the US private driven approach, like in any other area, is twofold. First, the Chinese actually have a plan, and the plan is made by an administration where competence and results are the main driver of careers. None of this applies to the US. Second, within the limited semiconductor supply available, the prices the US is paying inflate to suck up all available funding, however much of it should become available. The inflating part of this does not apply to China, and this is a major part of them spending less than the US. But the inflation part applying to the US, that is indeed a good example of the adaptability of the private model. Expect energy prices to adapt next.

And like drinky already drew attention to in his post - none of the US AI companies and endeavours are profitable. The difference between spending and revenue is 100-fold. And there's no way to profitability anywhere in sight. Spending is only going up with no limits, while revenue is hard limited by competition from the labour the AI is hoping to replace. As of now, even the highest paying customers are losing AI companies money on every query.

Who exactly is this mythical customer who is not aware of Autodesk products? In any of the fields where they are present, it is impossible to not know of them.

And the idea that a company with thousands of seats can shift tools relatively easily is such a wild statement that I don't know whether I should laugh or cry at it. The bigger a company is, the more difficult it is for it to change anything about how it does anything. If it were not that inertia and corporate culture are paralyzing, they will be done in by the fact that by changing tools they pretty much sever every business connection they have. It's not going to happen.

The Chinese are spending much less on it, and on top of that, they have a lot more to spend. It has been debated whether it was the US/SU arms race that broke the SU's back, but here we almost certainly have one that will break the US's back. The US has basically put their whole economy all in on the one chip that is AI. Even if the bubble does not pop, but will deflate slowly, none of the money invested into it will ever come back.

They'll replace the marketers with AI slop. Nothing of value lost, nothing gained. Nobody ever bought Autodesk because of sales and marketing. Ther products are bought because they are industry standard, and/or the best tool for the job. Might as well sack all of these people, and not a single sale lost.

They will deal with it as they have done so far: if the service is better than the ones that came before, they sign up.