MacOS has its own barriers to calling itself a professional operating system. A good part of my job is forcing it to conform to basic enterprise system management practices.

Calling them names and leveling false accusations at them is kind of the exact opposite of ignoring them in peace. Unless that's what brings you peace, in which case you're the mentally ill fuckup in that equation.

Demanding that people who are different from you to explain themselves to your satisfaction before you're willing to leave them the hell alone is peak conservative asshole.

I can manufacture outrageous events from my imagination and then extrapolate that fiction into a nation-wide systemic problem too!

I really don't think all these datacenters will ever be built. There are always more plans and announcements than what comes to fruition. The only way so many datacenters will be needed (i.e. economically viable) is if AI is so revolutionary to the economy that it would affect our power consumption in very unpredictable ways, likely offsetting a lot of activity in meatspace.

I used to work for Sling TV, and you basically have that backwards. ESPN is the part of Disney's package that people are willing to pay money for. The shutdown and negotiations every year is just Disney forcing the various providers to pay for and carry their other channels. That's why Disney always holds these negotiations during football season, so if they have to shut someone down their customers actually care. Every year viewership on Disney's other channels (and non-sports channels in general) is lower, and the prices that the content producers require goes up. Scripted television is in serious decline, and Hollywood is using sports fans to prop it up.

As an example, If you don't care about sports you can get Disney+ without ads for about $12 a month. Disney will happily throw in Hulu for that same price if you will watch some ads. You can binge watch the shows that you care about and then switch to another channel. Heck, you can buy entire seasons of their shows ala carte. You can't get ESPN however, without paying at least $45/month, and that's with a package with no non-Disney channels and chuck full of ads. For the record, that's basically what the streaming services are paying Disney as well. When I worked at Sling the entirety of the subscription fees went to the content companies (primarily Disney). There is essentially no profit in cable packages. All of the profit has to be made up somewhere else.

People that aren't sports fans, especially if they are entertainment fans, tend to believe that scripted programming is carrying sports, but it is the other way around. That's why AppleTV, which has spent over $20 billion creating content for their channel has about as many subscribers the amount of people that typically watch a single episode of Thursday Night Football, the worst professional football game of the week. Amazon Prime pays $1 billion a year for that franchise, and it is a bargain compared to creating scripted content. Apple makes great television that almost no one pays for. The other content providers are in the same boat. You'll notice, for example, that Netflix's most expensive package is $25/month, and the revenue per user in the U.S. is around $16. That's ad free. The lowest promotional price you can pay for ESPN is basically twice that, and it always comes with ads. What's more, sports fans tend to actually watch the ads.

Sling is selling day and weekend passes to people because it knows that most of its customers only have their service to watch the game. No one is watching linear television anymore, but the content creators have built their entire business around the idea of having a channel that they fill up with content. Even with Sling's ridiculous prices they can typically watch the games they want to watch for less than maintaining a subscription.

I have spent most of my adult life in the sports world, but I don't watch sports. I personally believe that in the long run sports television is probably going to end up uncoupled from scripted television. I think that is going to be very bad news for people that like scripted television.

You poor TDS sufferer. A post about how science advanced by admitting new information and you go off ranting about Trump and Christians. Have you considered that America isn't the country for you? We are a Christian nation and our constitution s fit for no other. Leave us. You do not belong here. We desire neither your arms nor your counsel. Go now and lick the hand that feeds ye, and may history forget ye were our countrymen.

You're just starting to acknowledge the possibility?

This aspect is troubling to me too. You know they keep making changes because "studies show..." Yet so much of the time, what studies show does not pan out IRL. I am (was) a researcher (in a technical field), I am not anti-intellectual. I want there to be an evidence-based argument for designing programs that work better than before. Yet it seems like it is not working.

I feel the same about discipline (or rather the lack thereof) in the classroom, "studies show" being coerced is bad for them, but now one problem kid that can't be controlled or moved out of the general population classroom is destroying it for 24 others in that class. There are certain kids who don't respond to instruction, and once they realize nobody can actually do anything to stop them (and I mean that literally, even while they are physically assaulting other students) it's all over.

What happened to slashdot? At one time this racist alt right trash world have been modded down to -1. But instead it's at +5 and This post is at -1. Trump voters are just plain stupid.

Is this real?!?

Like, really really for real?

For once, IT WASN'T DNS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ha. I can't access the article to be sure, but I think they mean making the user feel like the computer is incompetent, not making the computer feel bad about its performance like Marvin the Paranoid Android.

Equating AI with Pac-Man isn't really the intellectual flex you probably think it is.

Anthropic's entire pitch has always been safety. Innovation like this tends to favor a very few companies, and it leaves behind a whole pile of losers that also had to spend ridiculous amounts of capital in the hopes of catching the next wave. If you bet on the winning company you make a pile of money, if you pick one of the losers then the capital you invested evaporates. Anthropic has positioned itself as OpenAI, except with safeguards, and that could very well be the formula that wins the jackpot. Historically, litigation and government sponsorship have been instrumental in picking winners.

However, as things currently stand, Anthropic is unlikely to win on technical merits over its competition. So Dario's entire job as a CEO is basically to get the government involved. If he can create enough doubt about the people that are currently making decisions in AI circles that the government gets involved, either directly through government investment, or indirectly through legislation, then his firm has a chance at grabbing the brass ring. That's not to say that he is wrong, he might even be sincere. It is just that it isn't surprising that his pitch is that AI has the potential to be wildly dangerous and we need to think about safety. That's essentially the only path that makes his firm a viable long term player.

If nothing else they should not be allowed to call themselves a bank, including not a "trust" bank. Stick with crypto exchange or hascode pawnshop or whatever but not bank.