I imagine that a university level coding assignment and the backend code that runs the Twitter.com website (albeit just fractions of it) are several orders of magnitude apart from each other in terms of size and complexity. I don’t know shit about programming though, I took C++ in high school and got a D+. Should’ve called the class Introduction to D++.

I barely use my phone as anything more than a glorified pager. I don’t need fucking AI.

I could have full conversations with CleverBot a decade ago, but nobody was calling that AI then or even now. People generally recognized it for what it was - a heuristic model chatbot. These LLMs are just overgrown chatbots that still lack the capability of understanding anything it says to you other than how certain words relate to one another.

.com websites didn’t disappear after the dotcom bubble burst either. AI is definitely in a massive bubble right now, but something being in a bubble doesn’t mean it’s going to vanish completely. The AI companies with some substance backing them will weather the upcoming storm.

Full disclosure: I don’t hate AI, but I hate that management-types are fellating themselves to the idea of it or the things than it can potentially do, rather than something that is providing them some kind of concrete benefit right now. I’m also mad at consumers for being stupid little sheep and paying a premium for anything that companies just happen to slap an “AI-powered” sticker on. It’s like organic produce 2.0 - you have to have it, but we can’t explain why, nor can we elaborate on what it does better than it’s contemporary.

Like 90% of the consumers using this tech are totally fine handing over tasks that require reasoning to LLMs and not checking the answers for accuracy.

Regardless of it’s performance, it’s astronomically overvalued. Tesla’s market cap is larger than 5 of the nearest rivals combined. The value of their shares doesn’t reflect reality.

But reality inevitably catches up. Their last quarterlies were not looking good. The market is saturated with EVs now and Tesla is going to struggle to attract new customers, especially with the divisive politics of Elon Musk. About the only reason Tesla is still dominant in North America is because they are still the cheapest in town, but that is reflected in the shoddy build quality and bare bones interior.

A stopped clock is still correct twice a day.

I’m not going to downvote you, but, I disagree. Nintendo might have had a leg to stand on if they tried to say Palworld infringed on their Pokemon intellectual property and/or copyright, especially after the mesh controversy, but they didn’t attack them on that. They’re going after Pocketpair for patent infringement on a so-far undisclosed patent. Probably a game mechanic of some sort. Pokemon did not invent the monster collecting and/or battling genre. Dragon Quest predates it by a good margin.

I’d like to see the patent they claim to have. In what way might Palworld be infringing upon their patent that another similar game, like say TemTem for instance, is not? I hate the idea that a fun game mechanic can be patented and locked down by one company for up to 20 years.

Palworld would not have caused the stir it did if not for the blatant “It’s Pokemon with guns!” angle.

This was 100% a fan reaction to the trailer, and not an official stance by the developers at all. That’s obviously what they were going for, but they stopped long before outright saying it out loud and let the consumer make their own inferences.

They have every right to go after them, but I really hope they lose this one. Nintendo doesn’t deserve to have a monopoly on fun creature collecting games.

Okay, you’ve made some pretty salient points. I’m not too proud to admit that my understanding of the topic is limited. I appreciate you taking the time to educate me more on the subject.

Let me know how that interview goes, because if the rocket you developed and spent billions of dollars building explodes at launch, you’re going to be looking for a new line of work.

I’m sure the next aeronautics company will totally understand. Mondays, am I right?

but focusing on “blowing up launch pads” tells me you probably know very little about the Space industry or development.

That wasn’t the focus of my post, but are you suggesting that there is a nonzero number of rocket explosions that would be considered acceptable?

I don’t need to be Elon Musk, or even know much about the space industry or development to know that the target number should always be zero.

Fair point, I don’t want to fixate on that one aspect of the colossal technical challenge that is getting spacecraft into orbit, but I’m still of the opinion that a nationalized and fully government-funded space program will always yield better results than a privatized one because there is no profit-taking incentive.

This wouldn’t be a problem if we still had NASA doing the shuttle program, or some continuation of it, rather than outsourcing our spacecraft to the cutthroat lowest-bidder private sector. Is it really any surprise that SpaceX and Boeing are blowing up on the launchpads and having quality control issues when their sole objective is to make money? If we nationalized these initiatives again and cancelled the private contracts with these crooks, there would be no incentive for profiteering and corners would not get cut as often as they do now.

Sure, it would be a big cost to the taxpayer once again, but I think I’d rather have a reliable space program and like 2% less military budget to fund it, I think we’ll manage somehow without producing more tanks and planes that nobody is asking for.

Shocking that people are still using Shitter in 2024.

People down vote me when I point this out in response to “AI will take our jobs” doomerism.