My nephew is a drone pilot for a "smart agriculture" company that uses aerial imagery to assess on a more detailed basis whether each acre is getting the right amount of everything.

We can argue whether that is "AI" but I say yes because it reduced the skill of flying an aircraft to the level that my nephew learned to do the human part, and automated imagery analysis is obviously cheaper than paying an army of imagery analysts to study crop photos.

Certainly the U.S. doesn't "need" mass immigration.

I am reading online all the time that the US would have no concerns with population decline if it just stopped being so racist and filled the gap with millions and millions of immigrants.

I had a typo, I meant telecommuting seems like a more direct challenge to the need for immigration than AI does. Not that telecommuting is a challege to AI.

I'd like to see a longer excerpt before assuming "these trends" (from the quote) actually equate to AI. If nothing else I'd think telecommuting across the globe was a more obvious challenge to AI, and outsourcing certainly has been a substantial issue for years now.

The point of this article is that, even on full sized televisions, YouTube is kicking Hollywood's collective ass. When they look at hours of programming watched on full sized televisions YouTube is clearly on top, followed by Netflix, with everyone else quite a ways behind. That's not counting computer or smaller screens where YouTube is completely dominant. Movies are making less money these days because far less people are spending money on movies. Interestingly enough one of the few bright spots for movies are smaller studios making limited availability movies. These movies have much lower budgets, and basically non-existent marketing, but the empty seats in the movie theaters means that there are screens available at a price where they can make a tidy profit. Traditional television is getting absolutely wrecked. The only part of television that people are willing to pay money for is sports broadcasting. No one has a cable or satellite subscription unless they are a rabid sports fan. The shows that everyone is talking about are as likely to come from Korea or Australia as they are from Hollywood. For years people assumed that Hollywood drove the value of cable television, and now that people have choice it turns out that the valuable part of television is the sports (and to a less extent the news). ESPN costs more than Netflix, Paramount and Apple TV combined, and Disney forces you to purchase to purchase a whole pile of their regular programming to get it. Disney is currently suing SlingTV because SlingTV is selling day and weekend passes so that you can just purchase the games you want to see without all of the rest of the slop that you don't. On top of that Hollywood is seeing increased competition from the entire rest of the world. The hit television show that everyone is talking about is almost as likely to come out of Korea as it is from U.S.

Hollywood is definitely contracting, but it is mostly because making scripted content, whether it is for television or movies, is becoming far less lucrative than it has been in the past. People are watching less scripted content, and when they do watch something it is likely that what they are watching is not from Hollywood.

As you have mentioned Prime Time TV has devolved into cop shows, but it's actually worse than that. The few hits that Hollywood have had over the last few years have invariably been live competitions and other reality TV shows.

Banning kids from accessing social media is "handing parenting to big tech" in the same way that age restrictions on alcohol is handing parenting to bars, liquor stores, beer distributors, and everyone else who sells adult beverages.

I'd also argue the former is more harmful to minors than the latter.

Ideally I agree with carbon tax. But the level of public trust in the calculating the credits simply isn't there. Every carbon credit scheme ends up getting pilloried by the left as well as the right, over issues like how many kg of CO2 is saved by protecting some acreage of rainforest, or 'subsidizing' evil rich corporations by letting them sell carbon credits, etc. etc.

Maybe, since the first copy of anything costs a fortune to develop. The engineering costs for the second will be vastly smaller, and the content production costs probably none (though the content licensing costs probably increase in proportion to audience size).

William Shatner is a classically trained Shakespearean actor who appeared in festivals and on Broadway prior to switching from stage to television. His TOS enunciation and emphasis is due mostly to his experience with radio performances (which were over the top verbally) combined with directors on TOS constantly telling him to increase the astonishment. And in reality, wasn't anywhere near as pervasive or dramatic as the pop culture version that pokes fun at Kirk.

If they weren't going to pivot to ads or fees at some point, what did people think they were going to do? Yes, businesses use investment to build up to profitability or to be sold to a big fish. Why does everybody in here see that as some evil conspiracy?

I think the headline is misleading, and Carney didn't compare China to the US, although a reporter prompted him to do so:

"In terms of the way our relationship has progressed in recent months with China, it is more predictable, and you see results coming from that," Carney said in response to media queries whether it was a more predictable and reliable partner than the United States.

To me it sounds like the reporter wanted him to compare the US to China, but his answer compares China now to China in the past.

https://economictimes.indiatim...

None of which to say that the US has not been suddenly not only unreliable but antagonistic towards Canada (and Europe). But for the PM of Canada to publicly rank China over the US would be quite a thing.

Yeah, there's just no reason to memorize all these huge API's any more. Is that the same as letting AI take over the design of your code? Nope.

That Amazon builds data centers doesn't mean that they need to be in the raw materials or supplier industries.

Doesn't it? Past a certain size you can't just treat "the market" as an abstraction. Just as with power, at that size you can't just plug in that much equipment and assume the power will be there. At this scale supply is contracted ahead of time and does not spring into existence any time soon just because you are willing to pay for it. Amazon's risk isn't just having to pay more for copper-intensive components, it's having the entire project with 1000 moving parts stalled for a long time while the supply chain for any one particular thing sorts itself out.

Why are you so sure they're losing money by selling to two customers instead of one? There really is a RAM shortage. And huge investments going into alleviating it.

https://www.statista.com/chart...

Agreed, trying to get you on it when you're 150 sounds fishy to me. They let my mother-in-law go on it, who is in her late 70's and has always been on line dieting scheme or another. Now she is way too frail and little. And about 3 weeks ago she fell and broke her nose and got a concussion. My wife is trying to get her mom to dial her into her next meeting with the prescribing doctor and ask them what they are thinking.