AI is stupid, but it can track details and at least provide a hint.

On the "make stuff that works" side, I've had the experience like yours. If someone lets it go too far, then it's a headache and it's easier to roll it back. If anything a bit painful as it's "empowered" some of the worst to make my day harder, being confidently incorrect all the time.

On the "find stuff that's broken" side, well, humans don't have the attention span and the AI techniques are catching little but critical mistakes by humans. In my codebase that has had regular security reviews for over a decade, including a few outside consulting companies, this year marked the first year that the teams had LLM at their disposal. It found two security issues that no one had noticed, one of which had been there almost essentially from the beginning. Admittedly, neither were exactly world ending (both required attacker to log in with admin privileges and the things you could do were a bit constrained), but they were real and undesirable. One of them kind of missed the point and although it mis-characterized the behavior, it put a light on an area where a human could actually think through and sort out the real issue, and how the flawed approach applied more broadly than the AI identified.

So AI as a review tool can work, it has a significant amount of false positives and misses stuff of course, but it can either directly catch or inspire human attention on a sketchy area.

The security team said that it was actually quite remarkable they only found two vulnerabilities that both required admin access, that most projects they dealt with ended up with 4-5 vulnerabilities exposed to either unprivileged users or even unauthenticated access. This is the sort of code the world is mostly built on.

That is largely true.

But in the case of games, I'm not on your property. And we already discussed servers - I might not even be on your servers.

It might help to clearly separate these two cases: Pure online games with servers hosted exclusively by the game publisher, and the 90% of other games (single player or multiplayer with player-operated servers).

And there we have it, the usual ad hominem of people who have run out of actual arguments. Signaling the end of the discussion, because why the fuck should I bother talking to someone who says such shit?

Goodbye.

Presumably, this is the whole point of these contracts, to hold the customers accountable for Micron making memory for them when the broader market is not necessarily looking for that particular memory.

Now I don't see how this can work out in one of the more well documented ones. OpenAI had at least a trillion dollars of these sorts of purchasing commitments, and even pretty bullish assessments don't support their ability to make that much purchase. So I do anticipate the market failing to make their minimum purchase commitments. I'm presuming there are penalties in these agreements and so they probably get money for nothing unless it gets so bad that OpenAI goes actually bankrupt.

It uses a screen as a gauge cluster, and puts the backup camera feed there.

They don't presume any speaker setup either, which would be a pretty key expectation of android auto in general.

They evidently will support a double-din mount of whatever you want, so you could add that without much issue.

Presuming reasonable access to channels to cable and mount speakers, I'm a huge fan of this facet of things.

I would like to see a couple of integration points, steering wheel controls and EV battery state/range estimates fed to the navigation like you get with other EVs and android auto, but no need to be as heavy handed as other platforms.

Unfortunately for my situation, it would lose out handily if a competitor had a midgate. I rarely need a substantial bed and usually need the seating, but it looks like it won't be easy to free up your bed if you have the seats in. Also subjecting the rear passengers to coming in by the front door.

If slate had a 4 door pickup with midgate to get longer bed, and maybe 20 inches or so longer to have that same bed even with rear seats available, I'd strongly consider it.

You do know that if the immune system got confused about virus versus cells hijacked to replicate viral material, we would have been dead pretty much the first second you got exposed to a virus? This is what a virus does. The difference is the virus produces material that will re-infect cells, while the mRNA resultant material is not self-replicating.

You also know that we had *billions* of people use mRNA vacinne and autoimmune problems weren't even vaguely a concern, and it was effective?

No, it's not. Nice of you to cut away the part that already said so. It is HIGHLY relevant if something you purchased becomes unusable due to an action of the seller or not.

If you are new to this planet, this might be news to you, but otherwise: Yes, that is how commercial transactions work. You pay for something, you get to use it.

No, but it absolutely DOES give me not just the permission but the RIGHT to use the thing I paid for for its intended purpose and for any other purpose I see fit. First sale doctrine and so on.

That is correct. But the store could either sell the same game again (in your case where the buyer personally was banned for whatever) or demand a refund from the manufacturer as is common practice when defective goods are returned. Really, there's not much to figure out, this is already a solved problem.

Actually, that is exactly what it means.

Merriam-Webbster: (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/buy)

"to acquire possession, ownership, or rights to the use or services of by payment especially of money : purchase"

Seriously, why are you trying to defend an indefensible position ?

There's where your mental model is just wrong. The game server is in the domain of the seller. Some hardware breaking due to wear & tear or abuse is NOT. That is an incredibly important legal distinction.

What EXACTLY do you mean with "the game shuts down"? That is the whole point. The game SERVERS shutting down is not the same as disabling the game. If it's an online-only game, there could still be OTHER servers, not run by the seller. Official or unofficial. That is the whole point of "stop killing games".

Again, this is relevant for online games only, and is not about the game at all, but about access to a specific community or server. Even if I am the biggest asshole on the planet and every ban was absolutely justified - why should I not be able to set up my own server, invite my equally assholish friends and play there? There is no reason to disable the GAME, only the access to a specific server. These can be two distinct things. You buy the game, but you subscribe to a server.

They shouldn't create the need to refund. You're making up a problem here. Every refund ever was done at the point of sale for the price you paid. That's why invoices and receipts exist.

But that's not what it says. Every shop ever treated games as a SALE. Steam doesn't label the button "buy" anymore, but most other shops still do, and even on Steam everything else is handled exactly like a sale of a product. Shopping cart and all.

Because they want to eat their cake and have it, too. I'm sure players would be more hesitant to part with 60 bucks if it clearly said: "temporary, revocable at any time for any reason, permission to play".

This is the actual problem with nuclear power. And by the time it comes around, the people who made the decisions have already safely moved elsewhere or into pension.

They say two things, one is that folks don't know how to deal with a released person:
"Their case manager may need to consult a dozen or more paper files or databases to learn whether they were convicted of a violent offense, if they require mental-health medications, if they can stay with family or need housing, and which vocational and educational programs they may have taken, among other factors."

The other:
"Not only would a more-efficient system help released inmates get the support they need, it could highlight who is likely to offend again after release."

So sounds like making more informed parole decisions?

Looking up a nuclear plant near me, the sustained power output is about a gigawatt.

Roughly looking up peak theoretical solar for a farm that could sit in the same footprint, it touches *maybe* 500 MW under impossibly ideal conditions.

Power density story is rough.

Further, the latitude causes some challenges seasonally for solar.

Correct. Breaking is entirely irrelevant to this discussion.

If something breaks, it's on me. This is about companies being able to take something away that isn't broken at all, at any time they choose, without any refund.

For any other item that'd be theft and would land them in jail.

If you think software never breaks, I have a bunch of 5.25" disks somewhere that want to have an argument with you.

It's a complete strawman to argue that physical things break. If I buy music, digitally, that won't break and yet nobody sane would expect that the band can at some random time in the future say "we revoke all our music". I can also think of a number of physical things that unless I mistreat them will easily survive me and three generations down the line.

This is not about replacements, it's about taking the product sold away but keeping the money.

See, they found a way to get the support of the ones profitting from it.

The story makes pretty clear that they've been working this a long while, before at least the current hyped LLM was available.

To the extent "AI" might even play a role given their timeline, it was stuff that was pretty useless. People tried unleashing machine learning on these sorts of records and it just didn't do much.

Sounds like it's just a run at modernizing records keeping and access, which is fine.

And what stops you from making a seperate license to play on the servers provided by the company that is based on good behaviour and/or monthly subscription fees?

This is what the Stop Killing Games movement is also about: Sure, we understand that eventually you wind down the online servers, no problem. But if I paid for a game, why should you have the right to disable it? With no other things I buy can you at any time later come to my house and take them back or disable them. Not with my microwave, not with my shower, not with my lights.