GamingChairModel

Yeah that was the real problem with hot swappable discs. The kids who actually physically performed that operation were often too impatient and careless to put the disc somewhere safe from scratching, because they wanted to immediately get back to playing.

Back in 2002? I don't think they separated generation and delivery for most utilities, at least in the US. In 1996, federal regulators made it mandatory for utilities with delivery infrastructure to accept generators' electricity on fair/nondiscriminatory terms, and gave them some time to implement policies. Then, the actual generators started negotiating deals, but the early days were a bit chaotic, with issues in California with rolling blackouts, then the Enron bankruptcy, and then generators actually entering long term contracts with some price stability in the early 2000's.

For a typical residential customer who didn't go out of their way to look for side deals with generators, they wouldn't have needed to see their bills be segmented out into generation and delivery, since most of the utilities still already had long term contracts (or owned their own generation facilities) still in effect from before the regulatory reform.

Personally, I didn't see those numbers separated out on my bill until around 2009. And I remember my electric bill in 2000-2005 being roughly 10 cents per kwh, flat rate.

And, as I understand it, Anthropic hasn't committed as much spending to building out new data centers, and has setup their operations to be GPU agnostic, so they can keep flexibility between NVIDIA GPUs, Google TPUs, and Amazon Trainium, and play the data center pricing game. Anthropic is better positioned to survive an AI winter (and I believe it's coming soon).

Not with AI in particular, but yes with subscription based software generally.

The economics of it don't add up and the growth rate of the curve of improvement over time has already significativelly fallen which looking at the historical curves for other technologies is a very strong indication that it's approaching the limits of how far it will go even though it's nowhere close to the hype.

Yeah, I'm convinced that they've maintained the illusion of continued exponential improvement from 2024-2026 by sneaking in exponential increase in resources (hardware complexity, power consumption), to prop things up past what should have been a plateau.

AI has an interesting economic trait in that it's very, very expensive to deploy, and made very fast progress from 2022 to 2024. That caused investors with money to believe that:

• Pushing the frontier was going to cost a lot of money. More than any other purported revolutionary tech.
• Extrapolation of past improvement meant that whoever was on the cutting edge may end up with a product with a huge paying market.
• So whoever wins this race would be rich, and the investment would have been worth it for them.

But since 2024, we've seen that the cutting edge got even more expensive much faster than expected, and much of the improvements in performance now come from inference rather than training, which represents a high ongoing cost.

Now, if we extrapolate from that trend line, we'll see that the market will be much smaller for AI services at the cost it takes to provide that service, and the question then becomes whether the industry can make its operations cheaper, fast enough to profitably provide a service people will pay for.

I have my doubts they'll succeed, and we might just be looking at the industry like supersonic flight: conceptually interesting, technically feasible, but just a commercial dead end because it's too expensive.

ActivityPub is the fediverse protocol, lemmy and piefed are software implementations of that protocol.

In a similar way, email is a protocol, and Gmail and Exchange/Outlook are software implementations of that protocol. You can use Gmail to send email to Outlook users. Different people can administer their own Exchange servers on their own domains.

And some features of the software work best with other people who use the same version of the same software, although most things kinda work between different software. Like how calendar invites sometimes act weird between users of different software, but for the most part the core functions work OK.

So lemmy and piefed (and mbin and sublinks and some others) are different software trying to speak to other fediverse services through the ActivityPub protocol. It mostly works, but some of the details don't work exactly the same between each type of software.

One real concern I have is that there are now automated tools that can read a patch, and the maintainer's release notes with a description of a security vulnerability fixed by that patch, and then create a working exploit of the pre-patch vulnerability.

In that particular moment, you know that a vulnerability exists and that it was serious enough to be described in release notes, and you can compare two code versions, one that is secure and one that is not. From there, any AI coding agent is working towards something that definitely exists, with a bunch of description of what it might be.

So that means that the window between when a patch is released and when users actually apply that patch is going to be more important than ever. Downstream maintainers will be under a lot of time pressure to implement changes from upstream, because every new security patch will create a race to create 1-day exploits for everyone using that software.

Companies are building entire workflows around AI, but they are building them under the assumption that they won't ever be charged per token.

Or worse, where the AI models underpinning a workflow breaks or degrades in some way to reduce token usage and then starts behaving in unexpected ways, in a process/workflow that assumes a particular type of behavior.

Yeah if I were starting now I'd be looking at jellyfin. But I paid the lifetime plex pass, and inertia/laziness what it is, so I haven't found a reason to actually switch yet.

And the other way, too. The whole reason why Android chose Java was because it was, at the time, one of the better languages and runtimes for creating hardware-agnostic software. Now that a software ecosystem is in place, why should Google be able to control what hardware the already-written software runs on?

You were talking about $1.34 in damages, which doesn't sound like downtime or disruption.