noogle

The criticism from the second camp stems from the fact that the WHOLE job is to not drop anything.

A fence with a hole is useless even if it's 99% intact.

A lot of human jobs, especially white collar, are about providing reassurance about the correctness of the results. A system that cannot provide that may be worse than useless since it creates noise, false sense of security and information load.

We need to shift from thinking of solar/wind as "electricity sources" to thinking of them as "fuel sources". The marginal cost of producing a transferrable fuel from solar/wind is already lower than current electricity prices. The challenge is the capital expenses on equipment (hydrolyzers, fuel cell etc.)

No. A car can cost much less than $400. Hence I own a car instead of taking taxis.

I had the opposite experience: using taxis/Uber/Lyft was far more expensive than owning a car so after Uber stopped subsidizing rides I had to buy a vehicle. That was in a city with a metro system, living in one of its main boroughs.

Even today, a cab to anywhere (even 3 miles) would cost me at least $10 each direction, and we have at least 5 such trips weekly. This easily surpasses the cost of the car, including depreciation and fuel.

"prompt engineering" is a self-destructing field. If you use any rigorous approach to optimizing the prompt, you end up with essentially supervised machine -learning: models can (and do) learn the optimal prompt once there is a yardstick for the goodness of the model's response. That's a classical for a data-scientist, but the skill set has little to do with prompts.

If you are not rigorous, then what you are doing is essentially "black art". It may work for some tasks ad-hoc, but with the rapid pace of model improvement your skill will likely become irrelevant/not needed quickly.

The government printing the fiat money that fueled a lot of this seems to be one.

Besides, the "free market" is not a goal on its own. It's a method that is frequently the most beneficial one, but not always.

I guess for the same reason most of them keep buying from Intel - their market position allows them to pass on the cost to their customers, so it's not worth the distraction.

OpenAI is more of a "one-(very impressive)-trick-pony", so they have a stronger incentive.

That's a broader question, but in general: it doesn't matter what I think about Nvidia's business. I could be correct all the way, but if other people disagree with me, they won't pay me for the shares.

It's also not necessarily about the 2021 peak but why isn't Nvidia bigger? allegedly it's a necessary component to a technology that can replace hundreds of millions of people (worth trillions in economic output). And unlike OpenAI, Nvidia wins no matter which company wins the model competition.

It's the ecosystem - everyone else is using CUDA, so you need a very good incentive to stray away from that ecosystem. a x2-3 cost of hardware won't justify such move.

The cryptomarket was less favorable to Nvidia because it harmed the loyal customers (gamers, AI) for a temporary market (crypto) that indeed largely declined.

Why not? They seem to be a lot of leeway before any specific company will find it cheaper to design their own chips, or even to move to AMD (ROCm is not as well supported).

Perhaps someone like OpenAI has both the expertise and incentive to do so, but not many others.

Cryptocurrencies still had high barriers for entry for the public at large - not really a means of payment, and high risk as an investment.

Generative AI is used by millions, has very low barrier for entry (it's even free!) and most importantly does not require a network effect so can be valuable immediately.

Should we buy Nvidia stock then?

The greatest technological advancement in recent years critically depends on the hardware from a single company with no competition. yet Nvidia stock is still below its 2021 peak. How so?

Gas jerrycans. Either one kept at your garage for emergencies (cost: $5), or the gas station scaling horizontally by using/selling jerrycans.

Haven't seen any solution for instantly increasing charging throughput, and an on-line power is needed, while it is more likely to fail exactly in the kind of events that require mass evacuation.

That's the thing about cars: their real test (or importance) is not the 90% of the time spent in the "happy path" (short, planned drives after a full night charge). It's to address those edge but critical cases - long trips, unexpected drives, off-the-beaten-path routes.

Another thing rarely raised is the correlated nature of traffic issues. Charging is fine now, mostly because it seems there is a huge over-provisioning of chargers compared to EVs on the road. What happens with busy days? An evacuation order sending 1M people on the same route at the same time? For ICEV there is an easy solution. Not for EVs.

It's a different risk: if your novel DVD player did not work, you could just watch something else. If your novel EV doesn't charge, you may be left stranded, miss a flight or fail to reach medical care. Moreover, no government planned to ban VCRs using those early problematic DVD players as a justification.