gwicks56

"If you took a Tesla or a Waymo and dropped into into a tier 2 city in India, it will stop moving."

Lol. If you dropped the average westerner into Chennai, they would either: a) stop moving b) kill someone

I think it will be more like:

"Pixie, reply to that email for me"

"Pixie, book that car service for me and remind them they promised a free brake fluid replacement"

"Pixie order all the ingredients I need to make my wife her favourite dish"

"Pixel, buy everyone in my family birthday presents"

I will 100% pay for that capability, and as someone that uses GPT4 to basically do my job for me, it really does not seem that far off. And I do think Google has an advantage here over Apple or anyone else, not just in Hardware, but in the enormous amount of data and information they have about both people in general, and specifically me.

Similar. Waited ages in Australia for the Y to arrive, then Elon went nuts, then real competition started to arrive. Everything from Audi to BYD here now, some even have buttons where buttons make UX sense.

Found this thought provoking.

I randomly chose a Spotify playlist recently called "Programming music". Was a few hours in, and was like, "hmmmm, this music sounds weirdly familiar", checked the playlist, it was a few hours of Deus Ex music! It was perfect to write code to!

My favourite series of games by a long margin

I don't think they expect to do they? They are just using an unlimited bankroll to punish people they perceive as their enemies with hugely expensive and stressful litigation.

Worldwide? Definitely. Enough that also have the resources to pay? Not 100% sure, but I would imagine so. I think I read 500,000 Australians alone live in places with very little internet connection, or are currently served with Geo-Sync internet heavily subsidized by our government.

Similar story with my Mum. I bought her a Chromebook, and haven't had an IT support call from her since.

My $20k Mazda won't allow me to rear-end somebody even if cruise control is switched off. Neither will my wife Subaru.

Why would we not tax the source of the problem. ie dirty energy generation via a carbon tax? That would then incentivize all energy use to become greener, rather than ad-hoc singling out individual use cases? A decent carbon tax would eliminate most dirty proof of work mining, as electricity is the major cost

The problem with that approach is that nobody agrees on what is frivolous. So it ends up being counter-productive as everyone squabbles about why their most hated thing is frivolous and should be banned/regulated, whilst the thing they like provides enough benefits that is should be left alone.

Off the top of my head, the things I have seen people argue should be banned due to climate effects: - Eating meat - Plane travel - Cars - Only large 4WD's ( but not cars) - Clothes dryers - Bitcoin - AI - Computer games - Christmas lights - etc

People have been hyping up small modular reactors for as long as I have been alive. They make total sense. And yet, there is not a single one is operation? I don't really care what tech gets us to cheap, abundant power, but given the cost curves of solar and batteries, it's hard to see anything competing.

Both are here, right now, and getting cheaper every year. Nuclear seems to be something climate skeptics points to as a way of doing nothing.

Tether should be making money though right? You give Tether $1b USD, they issue some tethers you can redeem later, and in the meantime, they invest those tethers, in say treasuries, and earn 4% or something? You earn no return, so don't they basically have an interest free loan of 60B or whatever? So unless they are incredibly greedy, they can just sit around making bank, without actually having any good reason to take on too much risk?