What questions that they asked, for which he said the answers were on the web site, can he not legally answer?

He clearly had an axe to grind with CNBC, given his multiple passive-aggressive mentions of how they predicted his downfall.

The one interviewer appeared to strike a body blow when she asked if his motivations were tied to a performance-based compensation package. All of GameStop's flailing malarky makes sense through that lens: the CEO was trying a hail mary, 'cause otherwise he gets didly-squat. Part of that malarky is claiming to own 5% of eBay when, as the main interviewer pointed out, most of that so-called ownership was through derivatives. This guy's a fraud. Time to short GameStop.

The interview shows the CEO is kind of a jerk. He probably shouldn't be put in situations where communication is a requirement, like public interviews that are intended to help achieve an aggressive goal.

It's like he didn't understand he was on air during the conversation, despite the host clearly calling out that there was an audience listening.

The stark response from eBay is certainly understandable, having seen the interview.

Agreed that the Mach-E is a terrible name. But how did they screw up such a guaranteed out-of-the-park home run with an electric Mustang? I mean the whole image of the Mustang is a sporty performance vehicle for the young and stupidly lead-footed. Mustangs are classically known for acceleration and EVs are wickedly good at that. I mean, if Ford were to create a 1965-styled electric Mustang, I shudder to think how many boomers would buy them. They were the dream car of an entire generation.

Ford, are you listening?

What if you write a bunch of random noise of the same file size to weights.bin ... what happens then?

As a friend of mine in an uncharacteristic fit of insight once said, as long as there is a decision point that can be discovered, yes and the code goes this way, no and the code goes that way, it is in principle possible to write a patch to circumvent any DRM.

Here, there is a timeout test.

Need I say more?

Me too, well FreeBSD so I use vi. Besides my website is for me.

"Opt out of all FOG DATA SCIENCE data sets"

What -- exactly -- does that do, how quickly, and what are some of the side-effects?\

Underneath, it says "You will be removed from all our data sets." And yet I doubt that very much. Surely there will be an entry in a database somewhere saying "Device identifier ________-____-_____-_____-_____ requested removed date-and-time _____ from IP address _____", etc.
And does that only retroactively remove data? Suppose they snarf up another dataset, bought from someone else or collected by themselves. Is that data also removed from their datasets, or does another removal request have to be made?

"Science is about a specific process: you make a hypothesis, you set up a test of your hypothesis, you test it, find it true or not and based on that your hypothesis becomes a scientific theory or a rejected hypothesis."

That's the junior-high version of science. The one done poorly on cardboard. It's sad that people still trot out the whole "it's a process" trope.

And yet that one sentence makes more sense than the rest of the post.

The classic counter-example is Cheap Trick's Live at Budokan album which for many, myself included, had the definitive versions of many of their songs. If memory serves, they spliced a couple of different shows together for the release, but it was done pretty seamlessly.

Apparently the rain doesn't reach the surface. But it is still only slightly less hellish on the surface for the lack of droplets of concentrated sulfuric acid pelting down.

Or iPhones?

I have not seen AI code that is *more* efficient than human code, yet. I have seen AI write efficient, compact code when pressed, very, very hard to do so, but only then. Otherwise, in my hands, and those of my developer colleagues, AI produces mostly correct, but inefficient, verbose code.

Could that change? Sure, I suppose. But right now it is not the case, and the value system that is driving auto-generated code (i.e., the training set of extant code), does not put a premium on efficiency.

Web browsers are absolute hogs, and, in part, that's because web sites are absolute hogs. Web sites are now full-blown applications that were written without regard to memory footprint or efficiency. I blame the developers who write their code on lovely, large, powerful machines (because devs should get good tools, I get that), but then don't suffer the pain of running them on perfectly good 8 GB laptops that *were* top-of-the line 10 years ago, but are now on eBay for $100. MS Teams is a perfect example of this. What a steaming pile of crap. My favored laptop is said machine, favored because of the combination of ultra-light weight and eminently portable size, and zoom works just fine on it, but teams is unusable. Slack is OK, if that's nearly the only web site you're visiting. Eight frelling GB to run a glorified chat room.

The thing that gets my goat, however, is that the laptop I used in the late 1990s was about the same form factor as this one, had 64 MB (yes, MB) of main memory, and booted up Linux back then just about as fast. If memory serves, the system took about 2 MB, once up. The CPU clock on that machine was in the 100 MHz range. Even not counting for the massive architectural improvements, my 2010s-era laptop should boot an order of magnitude faster. It does not.

Why? Because a long time ago, it became OK to include vast numbers of libraries because programmers were too lazy to implement something on their own, so you got 4, 5, 6 or more layers of abstraction, as each library recursively calls packages only slightly lower-level to achieve its goals. I fear that with AI coding, it will only get worse.

And don't get me started on the massive performance regression that so-called modern languages represent, even when compiled. Hell in a handbasket? Yes. Because CPU cycles are stupidly cheap now, and we don't have to work hard to eke out every bit of performance, so we don't bother.

Betterbird doesn't solve all of Thunderbird's problems, but it *does* act a little more sanely in many respects, and the search works a bit better on my machines.

Remember kids, spaceflight is hard. Nature does not like us being in space, at all. She puts up serious, difficult barriers that we need to overcome. Just look how hard it was for a new program like Space X to start from scratch even with all of the existing knowledge developed by NASA, ESA, etc.. How many rapid unscheduled disassembly events did they suffer? I lost count. Even the Russians, who arguably have as much or more LEO experience than the US, continue to face challenges. Heck, so do we, as the current generation of engineers no longer has the direct experience from Gemini and Apollo to guide them. Space is deeply unforgiving of mistakes.

To the GP, if you think that your 5-second considered opinion is better than a fleet of talented folks, I'll wager that if you more time, did some research, you'd change your opinion. I hope you do.