Comment Re: Why? (Score 1) 45
Not all products meet a demand. In fact the vast majority of novel products actually create the demand in the first place.
Correct.
There is zero demand for Python on a microcontroller.
Incorrect.
Not all products meet a demand. In fact the vast majority of novel products actually create the demand in the first place.
Correct.
There is zero demand for Python on a microcontroller.
Incorrect.
For all they keep doing, the one thing they can't seem to do is make a checkbox to stop being harassed about updates. Apparently there is no way to do to this. It's much too complicated for them to figure out.
Perhaps they should put out a notice asking if anyone has the skills to create the checkbox and make it work.
It's really the same problem that we see with quantum physics -- the subject matter is esoteric enough that common sense can't be used to determine whether what you're listening to is really advanced theory or utter BS (or some combination of the two); they both sound the same, and the situation isn't helped by the presence of large numbers of people who think they know what they are talking about but don't.
I think the distinction they are making is between technology that kills people, and technology that entertains people. If someone fitted actual weapons to a Doom engine, they'd probably object.
Don't forget Paxton gave a lenient sentence to Adam Hoffman who raped a friend's kid for over three years.
But here's the part I find interesting: why assume a superintelligent AI would actually want to kill us?
Let's make the hopeful assumption that the superintelligent AIs will not "go rogue" in any way, but will correctly try to carry out their tasks as assigned by the people who designed and trained them.
Pretty much every major nation has military AIs, at this point. So the Chinese AIs are working hard on how to defeat the Americans, and the American AIs are working hard on how to defeat the Russians, and so on. In the final analysis, no matter where you live, there is probably an AI that has been explicitly tasked by its operators with figuring out the most effective ways to do you in. Not because they've "gone wrong", but because they're working as intended.
The size of the universe is increasing...
but the rate at which it is increasing is decreasing...
but the rate at which the rate is decreasing is increasing...
but the rate at which the rate of the rate is increasing is decreasing...
but the rate at which the rate of the rate of the rate is decreasing in increasing...
[... and so on, ad infinitum...]
People commonly overestimate the possibility of "all humans dying", and simultaneously underestimate the possibility of "billions of humans dying".
People are like cockroaches that way; a disaster could wipe out 99% of us, and there would still be millions of us left to repopulate afterwards. To truly wipe out all humans would take something more severe than the asteroid that did for the dinosaurs.
Which people? It's owners? The government?
Whoever set up its reward function, really. Could be any of the above. The technology doesn't care, it only follows its algorithm.
But... I'm sure Apple is going to sell* boatloads of these damn foldable phones.
I'm not. $2K is an eye-watering amount to spend on a cell phone, even in 2026, and especially on a design that seems almost guaranteed to start wearing a vertical line into the display at the folding-point over time. I expect a number of Slashdot articles about unhappy Duo users demanding redress over that issue, even if everything else works as advertised.
Maybe in a better economy, people would splurge on something like this, but I don't think that's the zeitgest this season.
Gravity brings me down.