Comment Re: good self awareness (Score 1) 36
People would believe in the hardware if they put it out, because IBM is not really known for exaggerating specs. But they don't seem to be able to.
People would believe in the hardware if they put it out, because IBM is not really known for exaggerating specs. But they don't seem to be able to.
I don't want even a new Samsung phone with its crappy nonstandard apps, let alone an old one which also has old Android.
Mega corporation advocates for regulatory capture, this is my surprised face
Sure, but putting storage online is cheaper both initially and ongoing than putting a bunch of GPGPU online, and in both power consumption and dollars. It can take up just as much space but use an order of magnitude less electricity, therefore be quieter, and have no one care
It might actually turn out good for IBM if the bubble pops sooner than later. Then they get to look smart for not participating when all the AI stocks (and the stocks of any other company that bet big) slump.
IBM has been more of a services company than a hardware company for decades, it's true. And yet, they are still a hardware company despite that, and their hardware is supposed to back up their services.
In fact if any politician caused the Internet boom it was Al Gore
"the race to AGI is of the same National Security importance as the race to be first for the Atomic Bomb.
Whomever reaches that goal first ( assuming it is reachable at all ) will enjoy an enormous advantage
over everyone else."
Or they just get burned for fuel first
Same for modern Christianity, despite women doing most of the reading of the religious works in the household at the beginning.
Faltered is right. Isn't IBM a hardware company among other things? Why didn't they have a hardware product to offer customers who wanted to experiment with throwing away money?
Which is to say, communists advocate for communism, whatever buzzword they call it this week, because the only way they can have expensive toys is to be on the dole.
It's so sad that your comment got a 5 despite your conclusion, which wasn't supported by the body.
They are literally advocating for democracy, which prompted you to cry communism.
"top shareholders" don't make any more than "bottom shareholders", not on a percentage basis.
I don't care about the percentage basis, it doesn't detract from the point. What matters is where the bulk of the dollars are going, and they are going to a small number of people who have the most money. The fact that capital accrues capital is a bug, not a feature.
Windows search used to be kind of OK. Never as good as Everything, but Everything didn't exist for most of history. But they really fucked it up somewhere along the line, which I didn't notice because I was using Everything, and now it's very challenging to construct a complex search without learning a whole new language of keywords.
If they keep the facilities small enough then you might be right, but then they miss out on economies of scale. They will still need some nurses in order to put up the semblance of providing health care in the process, not in the facilities perhaps, but around them.
FWIW, healthcare insurance shareholders aren't getting rich
The top shareholders and the executives are. Hence Luigi.
The main driver of high cost in the US is the providers, not the insurers
The insurers are motivated to drive health care costs up by the so-called affordable care act, which caps their profits at a percentage of those costs. Since they're not the ones paying the bills, the insured are (and via APTC, the government is, which means the taxpayers are) they want those costs to go up because they get to collect more profit. You need to not ignore reality if you want it to make sense.
The trouble with money is it costs too much!