LeoSolaris

"I never thought the leopards would eat my face. They are supposed to eat other people's faces, not mine!"

Because that doesn't sound like every dictatorship since the advent of the Internet.

How that reads: Microsoft wants to charge a recurring subscription and does not wish to retain customers who lack internet.

How's your level of false information? For instance, if I ask about highly technical specifics, such as how load bearing architecture works or a tutorial on loop quantum gravity, will your LLM fabricate information or are sources easily available for the presented facts?

Personally, I would be very interested if the system provides a simple method of fact checking.

Labor prices need a surge, especially interns.

In that case, it is time for regulators to step in to use the Tesla charger design as the basis for an industrial standard that anyone can build, like USB 3.1 or RJ-45.

The constant "As I'll talk about later" thing makes my eye twitch. Either talk about it when you bring it up or save it for later. If you do talk about it, you can always add more details later that would not have initially made sense.

An increase in homelessness and drug addicts could easily be explained by people travelling to Oregon for treatment. This is not the sort of thing that "public perception" is particularly good at understanding. Changes like this take time. Effectiveness needs to be measured by hard data, not opinion polls.

By the way, for your air example: compressed air would be an example of value over the naturally abundant resource. Profit on one of those little cans of air used to clean your keyboard is the "value capture".

Water, on the other hand, is a municipal resource that is supported through taxation. The private companies that handle most of the work are highly regulated because clean water is considered a public good. Bottled water through private companies does have a staggeringly high profit margin.

Software isn't static nor does it exist on it's own. You're not paying for the current version. You're paying for support, security patches, and for the next versions to be written. In the case of software services, you're also paying for administration, active network security, networking, and hardware operations.

Software is a lot like art or literature. The creator needs to be able to live in order to continue creating. Otherwise updates, new versions, and new creations become highly irregular or utterly non-existent.

Profit extracted from companies over the cost of business exist because that is how all businesses function. Profit is literally the point of capitalism. Investment in companies would not happen without the promise of a return. Even the smallest of businesses would not be possible without profit.

For a non-tech example, eggs don't cost $3.99 per dozen to produce. Eggs are expensive because of an extremely high profit margin. Is it justified? Price gouging? Currently there is no hard rule that differentiates the two.

Whether or not there should be a profit percentage cap is an entirely different conversation and not unique to tech. Personally, I think there should be a maximum amount of profit expressed as a percentage of unit cost that should be legal. Further, I think that an equal percentage of the unit cost should always be applied to wage increases equally across the company for non-management roles. Management should be paid out of the extracted profit percentage.

ZFS is stable and solid. It's hold up is licensing. ZFS isn't licensed in a way that can be included in the Linux kernel distribution.

Plus, my understanding is that Linus Torvalds has a dislike of ZFS because it came from Sun Microsystems.

Source: Fox News' Tucker Carlson

0% Credibility

Might be a translation error. "Mad" in the US isn't considered the opposite of smart. It is the opposite of "peaceful" or "sane". You're original title implied that AI proponents are either insane or in a rage. (Or both)

Crypto has always been libertarian, which is a sub-branch of republican. It was never liberal or democratic leaning in the slightest. It's just a techno-fancy remix of the libertarian fixation on the gold standard.