There are plenty of cities in western countries where drones are entirely prohibited and you need to drive to the countryside to fly it, observing various nature reserves and restricted airspaces.

It is also very common that training, a test or license, insurance, etc. are required.

The odd thing is that buying is restricted. Does that include ordering online?

BitKeeper also did everything Git could back in the day.

You forgot third: He delivers results often enough to keep the believers believing. Tesla really is an electric car company that builds actual cars. SpaceX is actually flying rockets, and has achieved reusability, opening the door for dramatically cheaper space access.

Little of that is his own genius, but he does seem to have a knack for getting actually smart people working on visionary stuff.

I thought these Al were really intelligent and powerful, why do I need special skills for them? Can't I just tell them what to do?

Those javax -> jakarta packages were not part of the JRE. However, those common interfaces are extremely popular. So you probably use a framework or library which uses them and has transitioned to the newer packages. But you could still use the old frameworks or libraries in a newer JRE, assuming they do not use a library that messes with JVM bytecode (which is commonly used to create more advanced class proxies). Javaassist, OW2 ASM, and the likes are the problematic parts for moving on to a newer JRE. These libraries are used a lot. In most cases you cannot simply drop in a new bytecode manipulating library. That's where you run into the part where you have to move your software to newer frameworks and libraries which then also mean you need to change some of your code to go to the jakarta packages. And then you need to hope your software didn't abused some undocumented behavior/features, or internals, of those frameworks.

Yes, there is a high probability that your (enterprise) software will need code changes in order to run on newer JREs.

Rich people don't liquidate assets when they want to buy something.

They get a loan against their assets. At extremely good rates. And no, they never pay them back. The strategy is called "buy, borrow, die".

First, you need to understand that if the stock price goes up more than their (low) interest rate, they're still making money.

Second, the whole thing is rolled up only when the ultra-rich person dies. The assets are revalued to their current market price at the time of death, wiping out decades of built-in capital gains tax liability. The estate can then sell a portion of the tax-free assets to pay off the outstanding loans.

tl;dr: They don't liquidate assets, if they did they'd have to pay taxes.

The reason for that isn't socialism, though. It's incompetence and corruption. Politics attracts the most incompetent and the most corrupt of people, always has and always will. Basically: If you're shit at everything else, you can always try making a career of telling other people what to do.

In theory. In reality, that has always been bullshit. The various bubbles, crashes and other events prove that. Valuations on the stock market are based on expectations, and expectations always include an element that is not rational.

True, though both of these companies do have an actual business and actual assets. There's plenty of companies on the stock market whose entire business can just pack up and leave tomorrow. Many of those are extremely highly valued. All the middle-men companies (ride sharing, food delivery, etc.) all work on the principle of outsourcing EVERYTHING. They hold no actual assets and their entire business model can be copied in a lazy weekend. Each and every one of them survives due to brand recognition, habit and by being just a little bit better in some way than alternatives. All of which can disappear in a week.

Tesla and SpaceX are overvalued. But they have factories and a workforce and produce things.Their value is not entirely made up.

Surely all the people who buy Apple laptops because of the great screens want to have a glossy screen with fingerprints all over it. I know that when I am tweaking an image in Photoshop on a small display what I really want to see is my own little fingerprints on top of all the details. And what makes it even better is that I will get to have one UI for my touchscreen laptop and a different UI for my non-touchscreen laptop. Just like those touch bar laptops that everybody loved so much. And Force Touch, that worked out great, right?

If this is only going to affect devices that have Secure Core and Secure Boot enabled how many devices like that exist in the wild? Who would disable both of those other than a handful of developers trying to make Linux work on Surface computers and security researchers who want to break their stuff?

China doesn't have enough young workers to handle the coming explosion in memory care for its own people. They aren't going to take on anyone else's parents. And China is a nationalist ethnostate. The CCP does not like immigrants and is not going to open the gates to people who are too old to work.

If OpenAI really wants to attract users they should get rid of the Silicon Valley groupthink vomiting CEO who regularly says things that horrify many people. Dario Amodei may be an even bigger dork than Bill Gates but he tries to not sound like a mad villain from a science fiction movie much of the time. OpenAI is going to end up like Tesla if Altman is allowed to keep speaking in front of cameras.

In a few years EVs won't come with lithium batteries. They'll all be using Huawei and CATL's sodium batteries that are not prone to explosions. Huawei will be launching cars with sodium batteries this year or next and the other EV companies will have to license the technology to stay competitive.

I can read. Of course expected, that's implicit in "future" unless someone discovered clairvoyance.

So again, in other words: What do people base those expectations on when so far the company hasn't made any profit at all? In a profitable company, I can extrapolate. I can assume "with X additional cash raised, they can build Y more factories, selling Z more goods." - but for a company that is negative and is making a LOSS on every customer at the moment, growth does not equal profit, it equals more loss.

Nine years ago we already had a funny prompt injection: https://www.bbc.com/news/techn...
Which was then used commercial by Burger King: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Can't wait for the new ad prompt injections.