Intel has NO business having ANY of their products being integrated with automobiles in anyway. Hell, the only thing that could have possibly been relevant was their GPUs and they have effectively killed the only thing ensuring they were trustworthy, an opensource driver. Naturally, even good drivers couldn't prevent them from being insecure.
Microsoft did release the source code of Edit (written in C) but this is NOT the classic editor because it is total rewrite (in Rust) with no shared history with the C implementation. This thing is a different animal and it will have different bugs.
The fundamental difference in DeepSeek is that it was equivalent to high-end models but used a fraction of the processing power. Assuming they all improved power efficiency, it's implausible for them to not conflict.
Zhu, who also served as the deputy managing director at the International Monetary Fund
I welcome all advances toward greater power efficiency but credibility-wise this guy is on par with every CEO of an AI company.
So MS now embraces Steam and extends it's library capabilities. If I were Valve, I would do the Microsoft thing and make arbitrary changes just to break Microsoft's app before being extinguished.
How would Microsoft do this if they were Valve?
1) Send Microsoft a C&D notice to remove all Steam titles from their library system due to "experience" and "compatibility".
2) Make changes to Steam that causes the MS library system to crash and possibly corrupt.
3) Sue Microsoft for ruining the Steam "experience" and "compatibility" as previously warned about. (This is more of a Sony move but whatever.)
This is the first step toward a full cure for everyone with Type 1 diabetes. With our increasing ability to manipulate genes, it may come to the point where they grow a batch of modified cells that are based on patient's DNA so that no immunosuppressive drugs are needed. If you're a billionaire then this is within reach but for the rest of us, it will take some time.
The future is already here... it’s just not very evenly distributed.
I was uninterested in this until I noticed mention of Megan McArdle.
Megan McArdle has been a reliable weather vane for being exactly wrong about everything. Like, it's not hit or miss, I literally don't know of an opinion she has expressed that hasn't proven to be mostly wrong or entirely wrong. If you know of anything she has written that was actually correct then please link it because her record for being wrong seems statistically impossible.
If Megan McArdle thinks BlueSky is dying then I would say this is an extremely good omen for BlueSky.
Some CEOs fear they could be ousted from their job within two years if they don't deliver measurable AI-driven business gains, a Harris Poll survey
What this tells me is that CEOs aren't knowledgeable enough to understand the severe limitations of AI. As a result, they are compelled to push AI use into their company simply because preliminary results show AI being effective at certain tasks. They clearly want to deploy AI and think it will decrease costs thereby improving profitability and thus raising their stock price. However, it has not panned out as doing what they think but they have not come to terms with that just yet.
TL;DR: CEOs drank the "AI revolution" kool-aid and are now trying to convince everyone they are right.
Why Arizona? Why pick a state that is so overheated and water deprived? Seriously, they are already fighting over water there and you want want a ton of water to do semiconductor manufacturing?
If that were true, the word "reducing" wouldn't be used instead.
Emissions reduction is the first step in working toward eliminating our emissions.
Did you think that if we stopped using petroleum for fuel we'd stop needing it for other things?
Not at all. That said, it can by synthesized which would eliminate the need for crude oil.
Or that we could eliminate emissions that are also produced by all animal life?
Emissions by wildlife was never a target because the problem is purely a human creation. However, we will need to remove CO2 from the atmosphere to undo the damage we have already done.
fossil
Etymology: From French fossile, from Latin fossilis (“something which has been dug up”), from fodio (“I dig up”).
1. The mineralized remains of an animal or plant.
2. (paleontology) Any preserved evidence of ancient life, including shells, imprints, burrows, coprolites, and organically-produced chemicals.
It would see the name is spot on because it's all stuff that's been dug up. You seem to have strongly associated the term with biomineralisation which is what the first definition describes.
If you're going to complain about the name of a category then you should at least present a viable alternative.
Here's my suggestion: use "olim" (Latin for "a long time ago") with the suffix "-ar" meaning "relating to". Don't like "olimar fuels"? That's OK because we'll just keep calling them fossil fuels not matter what.
By the vast amount of folks ideological invested in opposing the oil industry vs. actually reducing emissions.
The idea behind reducing emissions is that the emissions will eventually be eliminated. To that end, this does nothing of the sort. At best this could provide a false notion of progress toward eliminating emissions. It reminds me of when tobacco companies donated money toward cancer research, it doesn't address the root cause.
That said, I welcome this advancement so long as it doesn't take time, money, or focus away from efforts to eliminate emissions.
Scientists are people who build the Brooklyn Bridge and then buy it. -- William Buckley
