bogomipz

I think this is precisely the Packt strategy though - to always overwhelm the search results, whether its O'reilly, Amazon, etc. They do this by their sheer volume of low quality titles. Everything about that company and their content is complete shit.

It's worth noting their enterprise support is a joke. As is their whole pivot to "AI." Their pitch is that they are an AI company now. Good riddance. I look forward to a good community fork.

This is incorrect. A lot of these companies are raising debt to pay for these datacenter build outs. And that debt has already been sold to pension funds. The risk has already been spread. See Blue Owl Capital and how Meta is financing its Hyperion datacenter. They raised 30 billion in debt. Main street is already exposed as those bonds are in funds offered by the usual players BlackRock, Invesco, Pimco etc.

>"More than likely it will be neutral or will turn a slight profit."

Based on what exactly, just your opinion? Obviously you know nothing about the grocery business which is a notoriously low-margin business, between 1-3%. The only way that large grocers like Krogers and Albertsons are profitable is purely based on volume. You also realize that groceries are perishable items right? You also realize these are labor and energy inensive operations right? And that there's tons of competition? And of course shrinkage. There is zero chance that it would operate at a profit or break even. By the way it's been tried before look up Baldwin, Florida or Erie, Kansas for examples of city-run grocery failures. There are others as well.

Lastly, nothing about any of this in any way comparable to NYPD as a budgetary item. Comparing retail food to public safety is just really bizarre.

I am not disputing or arguing the the reasons for it. I was simply pointing out that the "falling behind" part in the article was more in the context of adoption as opposed to pure development.

Not at all. A big thrust of the article is about falling behind in AI adoption. See the first 3 paragraphs below the heading "Innovation and Adoption." Specifically:

>"Although the United States and China are very different and the latter’s approach has its limits, China is moving faster at scaling robots in society, and its AI Plus Initiative emphasizes achieving widespread industry-specific adoption by 2027. The government wants AI to essentially become a part of the country’s infrastructure by 2030. China is also investing in AGI, but Beijing’s emphasis is clearly on quickly scaling, integrating, and applying current and near-term AI capabilities."

Out of curiosity what data centers environments commonly have racks less that 42U?

Is Capital one just really bad customer service or do they other questionable things like add charges and fees that are not legitimate? I was interested in them since the seem to be the only provider offers virtual credit cards for security but if they are that bad I will consider them.

As I pointed out elsewhere the 200 person company is not accurate. The OP is quoting something listed as "peak" on Linkedin without even providing a reference. And for some reason everyone is running with that figure. Nearly every tech company had a peak headcount during the height of Covid. Techcrunch generally also has inaccurate tech company numbers in their profiles. Also you can't sell yourself as a 200 person company if you don't actually have 200 people as that would come out immediately in any due diligence an acquiring company would would do on you.

>"According to the CEO's linkedin post, they were basically trying to keep up appearances of being a 200 person company"

Where in the linkedin post does the CEO state that?

My understanding is that they reduced headcount greatly over the last couple of years and were well below a 100 people. The source of this was a then current employee that my company interviewed in November.

>"Twitter isn't focused on being a microblogging platform anymore, and X has a branding problem worse than that papa John's guy, John Schnatter."

It is amusing that accessing "X formerly known as Twitter" by typing "x.com" in a browser still resolves to twitter.com. Is there a reason that a CEO who is unbothered by abrupt and radical changes can't or won't retire the twitter.com domain?

Is there a practical reason for this? Certainly "tiwtter.com" being hardcoded everywhere would not rise to the level of an intractable problem.

FB, Linkedin, Pinterest as well. All of these walled gardens are "built on the shoulder of giants", whose work pioneered the open internet.

Further, what isn't silos seems to be content chum whose main purpose is collecting the reader's email address.

Oddly the modern web seems to be driving me offline and back to books.