I own my PC. The annoying thing is that I might have to pay a subscription for the gaming OS that I dual-boot to sometimes. Might just make me buy a console instead. OTOH, Sony already charges exorbitant subscription prices for the ability to play online.
You say that as if it was easy, and as if it doesn’t come back again a few Windows updates down the road.
But because it’s all opinion, it gives me nothing except “some guy on the the internet has an opinion”. I can’t do anything with it, especially not form an opinion of my own. It’s just a waste of my time. Mind you, I already am of the opinion that Tesla is going to shit but I found very little in this article to substantiate that opinion should I need to argue for it myself, and the headline is just a plain out lie that that has no basis in the body text. It’s poorly written at best, and intentionally misleading at worst.
Zuckerman vs Zuckerberg. Who will win, the man… or the berg? Either way, they’re both Zuckers.
In a corporate setting there usually isn’t
So call the shareholders and ask them to pay back the dividends that they’ve received over the years, to fund the YouTube infrastructure? That begs the question, what do we do when that money runs out?
That’s conjecture, and so is my view, but I disagree. They’ve even developed specialized hardware just to deal with all the transcoding they have to do, specialized for YouTube. There’s a lot of effort that goes into maintaining things that are unique to this particular service. But in the end, what matters is if they could make more money by spending their resources elsewhere.
Of course not, Google is a huge company that could probably just live off of patents for the next 100 years. But they’re not going to keep on running a service that just costs them money. Google is in fact notorious for killing off products.
That’s fine. It just reads to me sometimes as if people in the comment sections are angry at YouTube for trying to uphold a stream of revenue, when it’s the only thing that makes the platform possible. Personally I think YouTube has been a huge boon, I’ve learned so much from people who post on the platform and I don’t want to see it go away (which is not to say that it doesn’t have huge issues). So I’m fine with paying in some manner, at least until a better alternative comes up. If you don’t think it’s worth it, great for you, go and do whatever you think brings value to your life. But I don’t understand the vitriol or sense of entitlement to getting a costly service free of charge.
What is your suggestion for financing the YouTube infrastructure and development?
It doesn’t need to be paid. Many journalists are happy to receive a pre-written article that they can just push out with zero effort.
The article makes several claims and insinuations without backing them up so I find it hard to follow any of the reasoning.
I don’t think it’s desirable that it’s easier to reason about an AI than about a human. If it is, then we haven’t achieved human-level intelligence. I posit that human intelligence can be reasoned about given enough understanding but we’re not there yet, and until we are we shouldn’t expect to be able to reason about AI either. If we could, it’s just a sign that the AI is not advanced enough to fulfill its purpose.
Postel’s law IMHO is a big mistake - it’s what gave us Internet Explorer and arbitrary unpredictable interpretation of HTML, leading to decades of browser incompatibility problems. But the law is not even applicable here. Unlike the Internet, we want the AI to appear to think for itself rather than being predictable.
“Today’s highly-hyped generative AI systems (most famously OpenAI) are designed to generate bullshit by design.” Uh no? They’re designed with the goal to generate useful content. The bullshit is just an unfortunate side effect because today’s AI algorithms have not evolved very far yet.
If I had to summarize this article in one word, that would be it: bullshit.
I don’t really get how they consider this a meaningful attack vector at all. Of course I can set the phone on fire if I can replace the charger - that’s pretty much always going to be true and there’s no reasonable way to fix it. The only possible use I see is to do it when someone is not intentionally charging their phone, e.g. holding a malicious charger close enough when they have the phone in their pocket.
I am Jack’s complete lack of surprise.
the one cause they care about
You mean, themselves?
And it doesn’t remove promotions by the content creators, so you’re still seeing lots of ads. Still, since my kids spend so much time on YouTube I think it’s worth reducing the amount of brain washing, but I’m definitely not happy about the pricing. It’s ridiculous when you compare it to other streaming services who also have to produce or license their content.
More like they’re all uncontrollably spreading in the wind like leaves in an autumn storm, landing everywhere.
You’d be surprised how much microorganisms get around
Like Amazon but for social media
Yeah, won’t work well with multiplayer games though since they typically have anticheats that don’t play well with Linux.