Geez. I just type or paste in a destination and drive to it. Is talking to it really that much more complicated? Why bother?

That's not a "conversation". Google's marketing department calls this conversational. It isn't, marketing is the only legal form of lying.

You don't want a conversation; you want a response to voice prompts. "Route me to the nearest gas station. No, not that one. Yes, set route." That's not a conversation, that's command.

Don't let their sales team change your speech.

So, it already has a working voice interface? Which means this is all just a BS marketing way to say they're slightly improving the voice interface.

Really? The only problem I've ever had with it on my iPhone was that on at least two occasions it took me to the wrong address. One of those times it wasn't Maps fault, there were identical addresses in two neighboring towns.

It was just a couple of stinkin days ago.

That would be $0.50 off the price of the phone. Do we have a way to see if that's happening without access to internal accounting data?

Let's not pretend that what you describe is actually what happened. You booted into Windows already intending to install Linux, looked for and found something to complain about, and did what you were already going to do.

I service a lot of Dells. Their update software is useful; the rest is easy to uninstall or disable.

Or just remove the crap you don't want. With either approach there's a subset of consumers who would want to install or uninstall a bunch of things. So long as that's possible, it makes more sense to cater to the majority of consumers, and if the majority of consumers go right to installing Tik Tok, Facebook and Instagram, it makes sense to have those pre-installed. If some consumers don't like that, well, they'd be installing and uninstalling things right away anyhow.

I don't see a problem unless the apps can't be removed.

I suspect that The Guardian left out the bit where they also said, "but all plants would die, and then so would we, so it's not a great idea."

I mean, I could have told them it would lower temperatures. Had I been born yesterday I could have told them that, as I would have experienced nighttime. Though I probably wouldn't yet know that ultimately all food comes from sunlight.

It would probably be safer and easier to just not store so much of the sun's heat. Reflective pavement would probably help a lot, if it wouldn't blind drivers. And pilots.

To pick a nit - Is it a different problem? If your theory rests on how humans behave, how people actually behave isn't just a border condition, it's a fundamental constraint. Akin to, "It'll work, we'd just need entropy to reverse itself."

Nobody, right? I mean, you'd have to be a blind idiot with the memory of a goldfish not to work that one out.

Oh, this is from The Guardian? Well. That makes sense then.

While I agree we may be facing a terrible bubble, that doesn't really seem to be what they're doing. They aren't dressing up bad debt to sell off, like in 2008. Short selling the borrower's stock, which sounds ridiculous, would mean selling discounted stock to someone who is aware of the risk but wants to bet the opposite way.

The SRTs though, I don't know. It sounds like there are a lot of rules around them to prevent 2008 issues, but they're also in that same realm of financial mystery that mortgage-backed securities inhabited. Opaque, baffling to the uninitiated, and too complex not to break at the exact wrong time.

As I recall, the law separating investment from other bank functions was repealed during Clinton's administration, which led to a bit of a boom, and during the W. Bush administration, there was a big push for subprime lending to get people into homes. Those two things that seemed like good ideas that would help everyone came together in a bad way.

Bureaucrats don't enforce laws, they're middle management. They produce and process red tape to look important. The analysts, investigators, and prosecutors that do the actual work are the ones you and I both want to keep.

If you also want to keep those destined for Ship B of the Ark Fleet, we can disagree about that separately.

Well, I guess hosting costs will collapse as the centers look for new customers. Huge boon for game streaming if there are tons of GPUs doing nothing.

Shorting would shield against a bubble bursting because they'd recoup a large portion of the defaulted loan, but it only makes sense if they do it shortly before a collapse. What really doesn't make sense is betting against someone you just lent a billion dollars.

Well, it looks like DB remembers, why do you think they're hedging?

Come to think of it, this article is probably here because someone wants to point out that there is a big lender starting to worry about a potential bubble.