I remember the Internet before Eternal September. You need to go back at least that far.

Not a financial person either, but wouldn't writing it down mean that a company no longer considers it to have value? Is there something unique to the hardware they use for search-specific AI that prevents it from being leased out as part of Google Cloud or being used to run other teams' models?

Free speech has never been free as in beer, or at least not at any meaningful volume level. Talking to a single person was free, but that's not going to spread your ideas very far or very quickly. In the early days, you paid scribes, but that would cost you money. Later, the printing press brought the costs down, but you still needed money. Radio and TV made it possible to reach even more people more quickly, but at a significantly nonzero cost.

The Internet is no different in that regard. In theory, you can always spin up your own server and post anything you want to. But that won't guarantee that anybody is going to actually visit your site. To get eyes, you'll still have to buy ads, etc.

vim is the reason I had to give on up using a Dvorak keyboard and switch back to Qwerty. It turns out I'm quite capable of typing text in Dvorak, but relearning the muscle-memory for all the different vim operations was a bridge too far :(

If you ask Gemini why Google's search results have gotten so bad, it will give you an honest answer and suggest you use DuckDuckGo instead. Not exactly sure how you monetize "our service is telling our customers to go to our competitors instead" unless you're Macy's and you're in a Christmas movie.

<rainier_wolfcastle_thats_the_joke.jpg>

Perhaps, but in this case the real pressure comes from having to justify multiple trillions of dollars of debt, using a technology whose actual scope of applicability is much smaller than you've been leading investors to believe. You can practically see the flop-sweat at this point.

exactly, if my use of AI was a metric that was tied to my bonus I'd use AI for everything. Ai to write the slack message i'm about to send, AI to write my OOO message, AI to write the google search I'm about to run.

Only in the most utterly pedantic sense of the word "different" wherein you mean that by definition, infant mortality occurs early and wear occurs later. But they can both stem from the same root cause, which is a component not built with adequate tolerances. In other words, they can be the same fundamental issue, just expressing themselves at different times.

Most products don't have an MTBF. And things that do have MTBF are based on accelerated wear testing on a small number of units, and can have almost zero basis in reality. There was one model of major brand hard drive about twenty years back where a couple of RAIDs where I used to work got lost because the drives all died after such a predictable number of powered-on hours that by the time you could re-stripe the RAID, the next drive would die. They ended up making sure the drives had a high variance in powered-on hours before using them in RAIDs after that.

It's an example that proves or demonstrates a point. And the point it was proving was that the same root cause can be responsible for both catastrophic early product failures and premature deterioration-related failures.

Looks like a truck/pickup body on a regular car platform. What they call a "Ute" Down Under.

Wear-out failures aren't always different from infant mortality failures, though. If the defect is caused by a design flaw in a component resulting in a structural weak point, that same weak point could fail after one use or a thousand, and it could just be a ticking time bomb. Someone could get very unlucky and find one that is slightly weaker, and it could break much sooner.

Case in point, I recall a machine where some people would have to have their laptops replaced every couple of months for motherboard failures, while others lasted for years, and it turned out to be dependent on how people closed their laptops at the end of the day and whether they pressed on the bottom of the case in a particular spot that wiggled the GPU. But if you handed one that had been working for five years to someone who used their left hand under the laptop while closing it, it would be dead in two or three months. If you replaced it with a brand new one, the brand new one would be dead in two or three months. And so on.

That's is crazy. I could go into the office, but then I'd be in an office in zoom meetings all day with other offices! So my employer gets to pay me less to work from home in a lower cost of living area. It's crazy that they only have one location and can all collaberate in person!

Eh, no, you really just failed at reading that and wrote a long screed about something I didn't say. The post I responded to claimed that "another rocket company" would develop a replacement for Falcon "in a few years" if SpaceX folded. Then claimed Starship, a program that began active development 8 years ago, was 20 years ahead of anything else.

I'm pointing out the logical gap in "Falcon can be replaced in a couple of years" but any competition is 20 years behind 8 years of development. It's a nonsensical claim.

But if I want to sit in my mom's basement and shit out a 100k LOC project by hand with code I don't understand by using nothing but stackoverflow posts and then throw it over the fence that's ok because it's not AI slop?

I am of course making a joke here, but being anti-slop is one thing. Banning projects for AI or made with AI is being a luddite.

Well, dude did go ahead and do that. Whether it's a useful approach is certainly debatable, but since there's a working prototype, anyone can test it and find out.