OpenAI's US Ad Pilot Exceeds $100 Million In Annualized Revenue In Six Weeks means the revenue in 6 weeks was about $10 million.
That's a rounding error - was it worth destroying the product image over? I almost wrote "and their reputation", but the deal with drunk Fox news-host currently roleplaying as a secretary of a department that doesn't exist that had dipped into gutter already.
It is not actually that hard. And it exists. The Ogg codecs are it. But because they are FOSS, large parts of the industry is irrationally scared of them.
As to AV1, it may not infringe in any way. But it is a commercial target because of the backers behind it and they can get endless litigation and maybe even a settlement even if it is perfectly fine, just from sabotaging its use via a broken legal system.
Ogg is used by large parts of the industry: It is used by the most popular streaming service, Spotify. Not only is the Spotify client widely used on PCs, TVs, and all kinds of streaming boxes etc - a lot of audio equipment also has Spotify connect. All of these devices support Ogg.
As for why not everyone is using it - mp3 had the inertia, and AAC is better than Ogg for the same bandwidth. For mobile devices, that matters. These days, free lossless codecs (FLAC mostly, some ALAC) are taking the spotlight - alongside proprietary spatial audio format, like Dolby Atmos.
Apple probably never promised that it would be anonymous to Apple, only that average joe won't get the information.
Indeed. Providing anonymous emails to avoid giving your real information to spammers, tracking companies, and other commercial entities is one thing - but providing it so your authorities don't get it is a completely different ballgame. If you want rule of law back in the US, you need to get "MAGA" out of power completely and let the GOP rebuild as a conservative party while out of power for a long time at all levels. Maybe you even need a completely different party to emerge.
Even more than the PCI-lanes, there wasn't hardware to justify it. With Apple Silicon, the GPU is built in and you can't fill the case with cards from NVidia to make it a CUDA-monster or handle graphics beyond the (impressive) abilities of the combined CPU/GPU.
Exactly this. Apple neutered the Mac Pro by making all of its additional functionality useless.
[...]
More than that, the Apple Silicon Mac Pro is a sad toy that was never truly worthy of the Mac Pro name by any stretch of the imagination. It doesn't even have ECC memory or upgradable RAM. IMO, Apple really should have just been honest with its pro users and said "We no longer care about you," and then they should have dropped the Mac Pro as part of the Apple Silicon transition, rather than shipping something so massively downgraded that is so many miles from being a true pro desktop machine.
Anyone who is even slightly surprised by it being discontinued was obviously not paying attention.
I disagree with Apple really should have just been honest with its pro users and said "We no longer care about you,"'.They've abandoned a very specific and shrinking segment of pro users, but the vast majority of pro users are covered by today's lineup with Mac Studio at the top. There just aren't that many things which need a traditional tower anymore. And I'd argue that almost no-one needed the Mac Pro - as you excellently explain.
One minor peeve - what is "pro" today? Most office workers can do their work just fine with the some of the cheapest equipment you get - isn't that "professional" enough? Even most developers can do most of their work on laptops these days - and if they need more horsepower, that's likely to be on the server side anyway. Don't they count? And what about project managers, lawyers, and CEOs - aren't they "pro" either?
But I seem to remember them all being pretty crazy expensive for what you got. I guess it would be probably quieter than the equivalent Windows PC or hackintosh but most of the models I see out in the wild are the really expensive ones that would have sold for $5,000 and up
They were targeted as a workstation, not a "Mac in a PC-like chassis for home". So they had Intel Xeon CPUs, AMDs workstation line of GPUs, ECC memory etc.When looking at similar offerings, they weren't priced that bad.
the last mac pro had an big up-change for very little over the studio.
While not the best studio + TB pci-e boxes costs way less. The pro had X16 slots but the cpu really did not have pci-e lanes to fully feed them.
The m5 studio needs some kind of of EXT pci-e port (more then just TB)
Even more than the PCI-lanes, there wasn't hardware to justify it. With Apple Silicon, the GPU is built in and you can't fill the case with cards from NVidia to make it a CUDA-monster or handle graphics beyond the (impressive) abilities of the combined CPU/GPU.
If adding 3rd party GPUs was possible, the use case for actually buying a tower might have led to a huge increase in sales - relative to its existing sales level, of course.
And what assets does current foe have that are capable of tracking an aircraft carrier on such journey in real time, and what is their current resource subscription situation for those assets?
The main foe at the moment is Russia, and they surely know where the carrier is. If Iran is interested at all, they get the information from their allies in Russia.
"My current car is an electric Jaguar"
the i-Pace crossover? i still think it's the best looking BEV yet made but Jaguar didn't do enough with it
Yes, an i-Pace. Brilliant car. Compared to today's EV lineup it needs some upgrades (longer range, faster charging, Apple Carkey, wireless carplay and Android audio), but it is just such a nice place to be - and drive.
Korean cars these days are well made
Consumer Reports reliability ratings don't reflect that.
When I think of American cars, I think of poorly made and bad handling.
ok, so your "knowledge" comes from memes.
US cars have impressive showings in both teh supercar segment (and for a fraction of the price), and the sports car segment.
Korean cars are in the top half of the brands in reliability reports, while most US brands are clustered near the bottom. Strangely enough with the exception of Tesla, which has a bad rep for build quality here.
When it comes to handling - I've never driven a US made supercar or sports car. I was talking of SUVs and sedans, and for those the US cars I've tried (Fords, Cadillac, Pontiac, Chevrolet) have been universally bad. I've had a Hyundai, which was OK+. My current car is an electric Jaguar, which has really nice handling.
Korean cars were, for years, just poorly made shitboxes.
Then they became the poorly made cars that handled poorly but at least you got a lot of features for cheap.
More recently, they became the poorly made cars that handled decently and sometimes even quite well with lots of features for cheap but not super cheap. And the materials inside are still pretty awful.
So when there's blood in the EV streets, nobody's going to the Hyundai or Kia dealers. People only went there for the super good subsidized deals.
I learned to drive stick in a Hyundai Excel. I mean, they named it after accounting software, which tells you how cheaply made it was.
I drove some other shitty Korean car all over Spain and Portugal. Can't remember the model, but I had no problem with speeding because doing so was impossible.
I had a Korean made Chevy EV, the Spark EV, for a few years. It did the job, but it was not a great car. The most plastic seats I've sat on since a Datsun wagon. Questionable handling. Nice motor, though. GM built it in the USA, supposedly.
Korean cars these days are well made, and well equipped - rather than the long, confusing, flexible, and expensive accessory list you get from European and American car makers they tend to group them into 3-4 levels with the latter having the kitchen sink. They have long warranties (7 years for Kia here) because they stand behind their "these are well made cars" claim. As for handling, the ones I've had/used aren't on the level with the best European cars - but they are far, far better than anything American I've ever driven.
When I think of American cars, I think of poorly made and bad handling. I had some while I lived in the US and when I've been vacationing there or on conferences - and I'd never buy one again. Even before the "I'd rather avoid American products"-phase now that Trump is supporting Russia and threatening democratic countries.
As for EVs - I'v had EVs for 9 years now. They're absolutely great, and I won't buy a fossil car again. Fortunately, most others here do the same. The air is so much better near the roads/crossroads, and I can smell when a fossil car passes by.
The content of the Epstein files must be pretty bad for Trump, considering how much work he is putting into not releasing them despite a law to do so. In July 2025 Seth Meyers claimed: We’re just one Epstein story away from Trump announcing that UFOs are real, and it looks he's going down that path now.
Here's one case where the answer to a question in the headline certainly isn't "no".
First, as you do not attempt to defend it I assume that you admit that "sponsoring other countries"
Incorrect. As to your second point, I won't dignify that TDS drivel with a response.
OK, then. My first point - that the US isn't sponsoring the Canada by buying from them - is of course correct. By not recognizing that - or that tariffs aren't paid by foreign countries, but by US residents and businesses - it seems like you are the victim of TDS: Believing everything he says, and following it.
Your view on trade is warped by stock-market investor perspective, where trade is flow of goods and increased productivity due to a local specialization. That view obscures that reducing labor costs is directly tied to reducing worker's quality of life. Shipping jobs to foreign countries may be good for shareholders, but it is not good for blue collar workers. Likewise, tariffs might not be good for the shareholders but if they bring jobs back to US they are good for blue collar workers.
First, as you do not attempt to defend it I assume that you admit that "sponsoring other countries" (in this context Canada) is flat out wrong - just as wrong as claiming that other countries pay the tariffs, rather than Americans. Trump is economically illiterate, and others who know better - e.g. the secretary of the treasury. - don't dare to correct him.
Second - most of the countries Trump hate have better conditions for blue collar jobs than the US. Including Canada, Europe, Japan, etc. Public healthcare, vacations, sick leave, unions, and better pay. China and other poor countries (e.g. Bangladesh, India) differ here. As for tariffs bringing back jobs - they also make goods more expensive for everyone, and of course loses a lot of jobs that are exporting goods. I'm looking for a car - it was never going to be a US car, obviously -not good enough - but these days being assembled in the US are also disqualifying. Just as I paid extra to avoid US products for a rehabilitation last summer.
Free trade leads to better outcomes across the board. If the US - the "original free market nation" - can't compete, they need to look at the reasons. More STEM and less stupidity ("MAGA", conspiracy theories, antivaxxers, birthers, etc) is a good start.
One in five Americans can't afford their heating bills. Do you think US should be sponsoring other countries while this is domestic situation?
The US wasn't sponsoring Canada, that was just basic economic illiteracy. As for why Americans can't afford heating and healthcare, that's caused by national US policies.
All Finagle Laws may be bypassed by learning the simple art of doing without thinking.
