nerdjon

They are in a strange position, but I don't think they are going the way of Sega right now. The market is very different now than it was at that time.

We are applying the status quo as the only possible way to run game consoles when that doesn't have to be true. AMD and Nvidia compete just fine on the merits of their hardware alone without exclusive games.

Even Sony is realizing that they can't only publish on their own consoles. What Microsoft is doing now with Playstation they have already been doing for quite some time already with their games launching day one also on PC.

We also can't ignore that the need for the console is changing with things like xcloud (which runs Xbox hardware on blades, so it gives them incentive to continue making xbox hardware that can both ship as a home console and in blades). xCloud you can even use without any extra hardware (other than a controller) right on your TV with Samsung.

Obviously xCloud isn't going to be the solution for everyone. But we can't apply how things previously worked to how Xbox is trying to just have a different business model. And it isn't anything new with the ABK acquisition. It is continuing what they have already been doing.

Except Microsoft has said they have new Xbox hardware coming.

We really need to stop spreading this misinformation (and hyperbole) just because Microsoft is operating a different business model than Sony is.

I am not happy about the price either, but this generation has been weird with Microsoft and Sony not dropping their price and increasing prices in some locations. I doubt this has anything to do with Xbox.

I see it as expensive mostly because we have not had any drop in price this generation.

For example, take last generation. The Xbox One launched at (all USD) $500, $400 without Kinect once that was an option. PS4 launched at $400. The PS4 Pro also later launched at $400, The xbox One X launched at $500.

This is a $200-$280 (including adding the drive) jump in price and the base model is still the same price or more expensive in some places than it was at launch.

On the flip side, I also do worry about what exactly we are seeing from Sony again. We know that Sony can get cocky when they are on top (See PS3, cross play, etc) and make decisions that are not good for gamers. I worry this is a sign that they are going that way again.

This has been such a weird generation of consoles from a price standpoint but I know a lot of that is just due to pricing of things being weird anyways.

This is expensive, I am struggling to really justify it at the moment (and I have a 4090 in my PC so it isn't some thoughts about price or power or whatever). Games right now are just not really struggling. Last time around these pro consoles came out we were running up against the limits of the hardware at that time. That isn't the case yet.

It will be interesting to see what Xbox comes out with, the timeline for this coming out is pretty quick. So unless xbox was just about to announce something not sure how realistically they will have an answer to this

I am curious about this also. I have now seen multiple PR's that I had to review that a method was clearly completely modified by AI with no good reason and when asked why something was changed we just got silence. Not exaggerating, literal silence and then trying to ignore the question and explain the thing we were first asking them to do. Clearly having no idea what is actually in this PR.

This was done because we asked for a minor change to be done (talking maybe 5 lines of code) and tested. So now not only are we dealing with new debt, we are dealing with code that no one can explain why it was completely changed (and some of the changes were changes for the sake of change), and we are dealing with those of us that manage this code now looking at completely foreign code.

I keep seeing this with people that are using these tools and they are not higher level engineers. We finally got to the point of denying these PR's and saying to go back and do it again. Loosing any of the time that was theoretically gained from doing it in the first place.

Not saying these tools don't have a place. But people are using it without understanding what it is putting out and not understanding the long term effects it will have on a code base.

That kinda sounds like a thing where a big improvement to the Focus feature to lock you to a specific app (or disable apps instead of just removing them from your Home Screen) would address this problem?

I can see the value in this approach, but I also know for myself this would have been horrible in school.

I was always a horrible test taker (the pressure being a large part of that, but not all) and I often needed the time outside of class for any papers I need to write. No matter how much I tried, it just wasn’t happening in class.

I acknowledge the problem but I would be worried how this could negatively impact a lot of people.

Every time I see this device pop up, I really struggle to find out what exactly this has over something like an iPad with an Apple Pencil?

With this one being $579 including the basic marker. The iPad Air with an 11" screen with the cheaper pencil is $678. iPad with an 11" screen and the cheaper pencil is $428.

If it is the screen feel, how does that compare to the paperlike screen protectors for iPad?

Some say a lack of distractions, but you can turn on do not disturb?

I am just really curious what this solves vs other tablets that I am missing here, especially at this price point. Or is there something I am really missing here?

Anytime I see the "carnivore diet" on instagram it seems very cringy. Almost as cringy as just how militant many of the vegans seem to be. I have some serious doubts about the validity of the carnivore diet actually being healthy long term.

I am sure it is possible to actually be healthy being vegan, but it seems so many (at least on social media) focus on "Organic" or "Non-GMO" and somehow think that magically makes something healthy. When I see a vegan recipe that honestly looks good but every other word is "organic this", "organic that". Or try to say they are not using sugar but are using maple syrup instead.

If you want to be vegan because of ethical concerns about animals, than go for it. But I think going vegan just for the sake of being healthy is likely misguided and you likely did not do enough research to do it properly.

Personally I go for a balance. I will never be full vegan, but I also where it makes sense have vegan meals. Indian I always prefer to be vegan since those are not trying to replicate meat. I continue to use dairy instead of an alternative milk for my coffee.

I keep red meat to a minimum, don't do burgers often but when I do I am doing a real burger.

Some of the meatless products from trader joes (the meatless orange meatless chicken has become a staple over some cauliflower rice and broccoli has become a staple of mine).

Honestly at this point I just see little reason to invest in Elastic Search.

I have to wonder how much what is happening with terraform and tofu is related to this.

While I can understand why they went down this path, it burned a bridge and I just don’t know why I would even bother instead of using opensearch.

It is interesting since at least with what Google was previously doing, you likely at least got some click throughs.

Personally the way I see it, you can't argue about being worried about plagiarism while allowing one company to just mine all of your work.

You either block all or you allow all. Anything else is not helping either situation.

I find it quite concerning that we are going into a situation where some things can crawl some sites but not others.

I have my own serious ethical concerns about AI, but from a pure searchability standpoint it is likely to cause more problems than solve.

Information is going to start being silo'd. It would be like if I had to go to Google for one thing and Bing for something else.

That being said, I am also quite concerned about what you mentioned. I was not happy when I found out that ArsTechnica signed a deal with OpenAI (or I assume their parent company did). Did that deal include any requirements of how they talk about OpenAI, AI in General, or their competitors?

The concerns over AI are real, but they are putting a short term gain over the long term damage by somehow thinking that licensing data is going to save them.

The tone of this is a bit weird, do we have similar "blocking google", "blocking anthropic", "blocking meta" articles? Instead of what is really happening is those partnerships were formed so everything not that partnership is being blocked.

> especially in cases where the squashed sources were credentialed medical practitioners and researchers.

Every profession has its quacks and those borderline educated people. You can get a 70% in school (or whatever your school's almost failing grade is) and still become a doctor.

The only reason things are more "heavy-handed' today against misinformation (also for the record, putting quotes around a word doesn't change it from being lies) is there being so many people pushing those lies for certain reasons. Largely political (control) and fear mongering. In an attempt to themselves build mistrust against something to further their own goals.

This misinformation is causing serious problems that are being pushed to the side.

Unlike those that are pushing this misinformation, the scientific method is willing to admit when it is wrong. It is entirely how it is built to work.

Maybe instead of being so worried about the "censorship" (which again, to be clear they can continue to say whatever they want but they are also not free from the repercussions), you should ask why there is so much passion behind fighting the misinformation and the damage that misinformation is causing.

Unfortunately I highly doubt it.

There might be a small number but when the major problem is misinformation I just don't have much faith in it really moving the needle as much as is necessary.

Given that we are seeing serious problems with people even getting traditional vaccines right now.

For the record: I would love very much to be wrong in everything I said above. But the last few years just don't have me holding out any hope.

There is also a question of if after operation dark storm, was there any other power source suitable to be able to power all of the machines? Even if they did not have a law against genocide (which considering the resets that happen in the matrix killing all but 15? 16? whatever the number is not sure that law exists), like Operation Dark Storm was a last ditch effort, was this also a last ditch effort on the machines side.

But at the same time the theory that maybe they are against genocide in some form is backed up by Smith talking about how the original matrix was going to be a utopia. That doesn't seem like the kind of thing you would do to the people you are fighting (and just tried to wipe you out completely), if it wasn't for some ethical guidelines.

Fuel would be a limited resource. I know that a lot of people point out that on a biological sense it does not make sense, but we also see Neo being pretty frail when he wakes up. Does that biological problem still stand up when your body is frail and it is basically just your brain and basic processes. Throw in that your not eating real food, likely optimized for as little energy lost to process that food.

Something that I don't think any of the media touched on, but would it be crazy to think that the machines could have made genetic modifications to support this.

Interesting, I figured that they were basically subsidizing the first launch in the hopes of making it back in later launches.

I could have sworn I remember there being an article about them doing something for the Government and they wanted a fresh rocket so it cost more. But maybe I am remembering wrong.

So roughly first rocket at cost and then if they are successful (which is for sure an incentive) the rest is profit above maintenance cost.

So... where exactly do the neurons come from? Are these donated neurons or grown in a lab from samples?

This seems... questionable at best. Not really comfortable with the idea of this...

I am curious, so I know that a big part of SpaceX is the re-usability aspect. But at what point is the rocket basically paid for (except for continued Maintence)?

Given that this is this rocket's 23rd flight, was this really a "loss" for SpaceX or was the rocket already basically paid off.

I realize launches for Starlink make this a more complicated number.

Honestly?

I don't know. I mean I am still eventually going to get the tattoos, the meaning of all of the tattoos I want are important to me. So technically no the plan hasn't changed and I am actively talking to an artist about my next tattoo. But what exactly to do about this situation... I honestly don't know yet.

I don't even know how I would vet the ink. Just asking if they got it from Amazon sure, but I have to imagine that this is not limited to Amazon and we only learned about it due to scale.

> This is subjective. "Health" here might be taken to include mental health, in which case there could be many positive benefits.

100% this. I have a tattoo on my forearm that just makes me happy to look at. It is nearly always partially in my vision while working due to its location. If I am having a bad day I can just look at it and smile. It reflects an important part of me.

The mental health benefit of that, has been incredibly noticeable in my day to day.

Could I have done something similar with a picture on my phone or something? Sure. But this clearly has a huge impact on my mental health so why not get it tattooed. Also my 5th tattoo so it wasn't a crazy idea for me.

That's just glorious.

I would assume that if this was a problem you would know pretty soon after getting a tattoo right? Like if my tattoos are fully healed and at least a few months old I should be in the clear? I don't see this mentioned in the article.

Really don't like the idea of now needing to ask my artist about the source of their ink, but I also assume that Amazon likely isn't the only source of some bad ink.

None of my tattoos have been "impulse". Planned months or years in advanced, hell I have a large tattoo project that I commissioned the piece for back in 2020 and finally starting the discussion about actually starting the tattoo.

I have several other tattoos that I have been thinking about for years. I have mapped out at least a general guide of where the tattoos I plan on getting, likely over at least the next 10 years on my body.

Tattoos are expensive. Most are not going to impulse something that expensive.

Thankfully most people have some common sense and realize that tattoos are just another way of expressing who you are and not trying to force uniformity. There are still some weird views about "acceptable" tattoo locations but thats another story.

I won't even hide my tattoo's for an interview, if you have a problem with it thats your problem and I don't care to work with you.

I see very little information about what is happening here.

Are you self hosting an LLM or sending the data to a third party, your privacy policy makes no reference to this anywhere which is dangerous. Anyone using this needs to know where else their data is going.

By "AI Tools" I am assuming we are just talking about system prompts? System prompts that I assume I could just go to an LLM and ask it to generate this prompt for me.

Also, is this $1 per use of each tool?

And it will be 3 years late!

I honestly would love to know how much money is 'wasted' by NASA because of these companies that seem to, over promise and then need a lot more money.

And I don't say wasted because I think that the money spent at NASA is not worthwhile. But how much else could be done if that money could be spent elsewhere or at the very least be properly estimated in the beginning so it could have been planned for. That money is (I assume) going to come at the cost of something else.

I really don't love the idea of SpaceX not having a serious competition. But... they kinda don't right now anyways it seems. I really hope we have another company step up to be anywhere near what they are doing.

So if I am understand correctly, what I mentioned is correct?

On the website (where my quote comes from) it links to https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/tree/main/src/mono which is a mono within what you linked too.

So this is a case of 2 different mono's?

Sorry just trying to make sure I am understanding what is happening here properly given the exact same name in 2 places...

I will be honest, this is where I have some conflicted opinions.

In many coffee shops they are different people. There is just the person at the register and then there is the person who made my coffee. Who did the tip go too? I would assume it's pooled, but I have no way to know that.

This isn't the case everywhere, there are for sure places that it is the same people (or one place I go to it is a joint effort, it is a super small place with them regularly both shuffling work like one pouring milk while one brew the espresso).

I am honestly curious who was really pushing this? Unless I missed it I don't think I heard anything about no taxes on tips until both candidates suddenly supported it. So just seems like it came out of nowhere.

If we really are going to stick with tips, I think it's fine. Maybe it will fix some of the issues on the workers side temporarily.

But we honestly just need to move away from tipping in the US. Give everyone a livable wage and increase prices slightly. I am already paying 15/20% more thanks to tipping so there is no harm in just increasing the cost of the item, likely less than I am paying now since it would be evenly split between everyone instead of just those that tip.

I have only used mono a couple times, but I am a bit confused by the wording here and it is likely because I don't know the full story of Mono.

But:

> Microsoft maintains a modern fork of Mono runtime in the dotnet/runtime repo and has been progressively moving workloads to that fork.

Does that mean that this mono project and its associated repo and what is within the dotnet repo are not the same and could (if they have not already) diverge?

> You're right, the majority of games take place in entirely fictional worlds that aren't meant to accurately represent any specific real life location or time period, which is why it makes no sense to apply real world politics to them, or to imply that they are all inherently political in some form.

You could just as easily say the exact opposite, they take place in fictional worlds so there is no reason they can't have diversity.

That sounds like it is just an argument to have fully white games.

But wait they are fictional, so maybe every character should be trans? Maybe gender doesn't exist. Because it's a fictional world. That is what you are saying. So if a game would do that it's not politics, it's a fictional world.

You're not justifying why a video game has to be a certain way, other than wanting to conform to your narrow view of the world. In reality you are justifying a game that, in your own words is an "entirely fictional world", can do whatever they want to do.

It is depressing that you feel like you are under attack by an increase in diversity. When all that is happening is the world is no longer catering to you (or me for that matter). But even with the efforts to make things more diverse, most media is still white dominated.

Honestly, I am done with this conversation. It is depressing that apparently enough people think like you to take what I am saying as an offense. To flag this entire article but also my post.

Diversity is going to happen, most people recognize the value of diversity. Your choice is going to be whether or not you will continue to be part of society or just be mad all the time.

> research and development.

I think that is the question, how much legitimate R&D is really going on here vs trying to shove an LLM into some random hardware and ship it?

Or shove an LLM in some app trying to solve a problem that it isn't capable of.

No doubt that creating these models are hard, having the data is hard. But how much of the AI startups is actually that vs just shoving the OpenAI API in something.