I'd dispute this, as I count myself as a tech enthusiast but I'm an enthusiast for tech which works well. I increasingly find myself having to put up with stuff that doesn't work well, and this AI investment instead of fixing the stuff that Windows is routinely doing to make my working day harder is infuriating.
Also, in my experience, it's the non-tech-enthusiasts who are diving into LLMs because they don't understand what is actually going on and it basically looks like a repeat of the whole thing about ELIZA a few decades ago. Just this time it's vastly more expensive and has to run on a datacentre and can write you an essay instead of just rephrasing your question.
True, however if you want to be great on the world stage and have people look at you and say "wow they can do amazing things" I'm not sure landing on the moon really has much value. The obsession with beating China there this generation is certainly not very healthy, especially when it's built on a moon landing system that was primarily designed to keep space shuttle contractors in business.
Want to impress the world? End poverty. Advance cancer treatment. Build a viable nuclear fusion power plant. Make an HIV vaccine and sell it affordably across the world. We could be done with the Cold War-era rocket-waving.
China didn't _end_ poverty but they did lift hundreds of millions of people out of it and i've literally never seen anyone outside of China give them props for it
Really? I've seen the opposite. They get way too many props for it given that the main reason China was so poor to begin with was their own cultural history. You shouldn't get credit for solving a problem you created for yourselves.
That's not actually what the reply said, it was extremely noncommittal as you'd expect. If you contacted one of your MEPs they might have a stronger opinion they'd want to promote, but the DMA team are just not going to render judgement based on one email.
But my initial reading of F-Droid's explanation was "hang on, Google are going to get slammed for the same thing Apple got slammed for" so I hope they do come to the same conclusion and do it quickly, before F-Droid is entirely dead.
Maybe that's Google's intention - that the time lag on enforcement is going to be long enough that they achieve half the goal anyway.
> that the time lag on enforcement is going to be long enough that they achieve half the goal anyway.
This is the primary legal strategy of (1) tobacco companies, (2) investment bank pushing risky products to unknowing customers, and (3) big oil&gas' environmental policy. Regarding EU DMA laws, I feel that Apple and Google are pursuing the same strategy.
Unfortunately for the LLM vendors, that's not what we're seeing. I guess that used to be the plan, and now they're just scrambling around for whatever they can manage before it all falls apart.
Yeah there's a lot of stuff comes off tyres, and EVs still have that. They also produce brake dust, although maybe less of it because of regenerative braking.
But they do have no tailpipe emissions, so they're still kicking out a lot less air pollution than a combustion-fuelled vehicle with not just the carbon dioxide but the myriad of pollutants which lower urban air quality so much.
Ultimately, a less dusty tyre would be a good thing, but the significant impact we can make now is to continue the EV transition knowing that like all solutions it's imperfect and we also need to use fewer vehicles and keep looking for better options.
My understanding is that more recent fission reactor designs are done in such a way that they fail in ways which cause the reaction to diminish rather than build up further, which puts you in a better place than, say, Chernobyl.
You still have a very hot very radioactive lump of death in the middle of your busted reactor when it's all done though, and that's definitely not fun. Fusion failure modes - in current designs anyway - are far more appealing to anybody who happens to be in the area at the time.
/s