Again, they should have called the police with juriscidtion if that were the case. They should have, at most, detained him on scene until cops show up.

So far I’ve seen:

• They pulled into a car and then violently arrested the driver because “she rammed their vehicle” despite footage clearly showing they drove into hers. They didn’t want to get in trouble for causing an accident so they just made stuff up.
• Even in the sandwich “attack” they asserted that the sandwich contents covered their vest, but footage showed it stayed in the wrapper the whole time.

They clearly are cultivating a culture of make stuff up to blame the people they get mad at. They have zero credibility.

But still, it’s like 40% actively voting for the GOP even in this scenario. It’s crazy that GOP basically has an absolute lock on 40% of the population no matter what they do.

I heard this report where they went to a charity food pantry in deeply Trump territory to get their perspective on the whole benefits being stopped.

This woman talked about how it was a good thing for SNAP and everything like it to go away, people need to take care of themselves. Immediately recognizing that it was an odd thing for her to say, since she was there to get food from the charity, she clarifies “I take care of myself and don’t need a handout, I’m just here because I might like some of the food for myself”.

This woman didn’t want people thinking of her as in need and thought it sounded better if she was taking food away from the poorer people…

This is how Trump still carries like 40% of the population approving of him.

Yeah, but can they handle the collapse of going back to the company before the AI boom? They’ve increased in market cap 5000%, attracted a lot of stakeholders that never would have bothered with nVidia if not for the LLM boom. If LLM pops, then will nVidia survive with their new set of stakeholders that didn’t sign up for a ‘mere graphics company’?

They’ve reshaped their entire product strategy to be LLM focused. Who knows what the demand is for their current products without the LLM bump. Discrete GPUs were becoming increasingly niche since ‘good enough’ integrated GPUs kind of were denting their market.

They could survive a pop, but they may not have the right backers to do so anymore…

Nah, they already converted all their business clients to recurring revenue and are, relatively, not very exposed to the LLM thing. Sure they will have overspent a bit on datacenters and nVidia gear, but they continue to basically have most of global business solidly giving them money continuously to keep Office and Azure.

In terms of longer term tech companies that could be under existential threat, I’d put Supermicro in there. They are a long term fixture in the market that was generally pretty modest and had a bit of a boost from the hyperscalers as ‘cloud’ took off, but frankly a lot of industry folks were not sure exactly how Supermicro was getting the business results they reported while doing the things they were doing. Then AI bubble pulled them up hard and was a double edged sword as the extra scrutiny seemingly revealed the answer was dubious accounting all along. The finding would have been enough to just destroy their company, except they were ‘in’ on AI enough to be buoyed above the catastrophe.

A longer stretch, but nVidia might have some struggles. The AI boom has driven their market cap about 5000%. They’ve largely redefined most of their company to be LLM centric, with other use cases left having to make the most of whatever they do for LLM. How will their stakeholders react to a huge drop from the most important company on earth to a respectable but modest vendor of stuff for graphics? How strong is the appetite for GPU when the visual results aren’t really that much more striking than they were 3 generations of hardware back?

I used to think the same, then I did thorough dental hygiene and the dental visit was remarkably bloodless.

It’s 100 billion, if you actually heard million, someone misspoke. Don’t listen when Dr. Evil talks about amounts of money.

Broadly speaking, I’d say simulation theory is pretty much more akin to religion than science, since it’s not really testable. We can draw analogies based on what we see in our own works, but ultimately it’s not really evidence based, just ‘hey, it’s funny that things look like simulation artifacts…’

There’s a couple of ways one may consider it distinct from a typical theology:

• Generally theology fixates on a “divine” being or beings as superior entities that we may appeal to or somehow guess what they want of us and be rewarded for guessing correctly. Simulation theory would have the higher order beings likely being less elevated in status.
• One could consider the possibility as shaping our behavior to the extent we come anywhere close to making a lower order universe. Theology doesn’t generally present the possibility that we could serve that role relative to another.

But that sounds like disproving a scenario no one claimed to be the case: that everything we perceive is as substantial as we think it is and can be simulated at full scale in real time by our own universe.

Part of the whole reason people think of simulation theory as worth bothering to contemplate is because they find quantum physics and relativity to be unsatisyingly “weird”. They like to think of how things break down at relativistic velocities and quantum scale as the sorts of ways a simulation would be limited if we tried, so they like to imagine a higher order universe that doesn’t have those pesky “weird” behaviors and we are only stuck with those due to simulation limits within this hypothetical higher order universe.

Nothing about it is practical, but a lot of these science themed “why” exercises aren’t themselves practical or sciency.

There another option, you believe only the local rich employer can help you.

Grew up in a small town with only one big employer. If they said bigger taxes would mean layoffs, will the town hated the idea of bigger taxes., because the employer was seen as the only things keeping a respectable and comfortable lifestyle possible in the community.

Welfare was both inadequate and shameful, and other than that, they didn’t see upside to government spending. The big projects they see were things like building a big bypass for a big city to have better traffic. Meanwhile all the infrastructure spending closer to home was less dramatic. The roads thanklessly kept drivable without any dramatic news coverage. The local medical center kept afloat by federal spending without anyone really highlighting that. Easy to make the narrative that big government takes your money and gives it to city folk, and anything the employer does to the community is forced by big bad government.

If only they had made this research before they made the Abyss, that could have been a more interesting concept…

Butt breathing, third form…

When will they cover this in Demon Slayer?

Well for Trump, either way there will not be another election. Either the system stays intact and he is disqualified or he says screw the system and stays in office. Our he dies first.

That’s how you get a promotion.

I wish I was kidding.

Well, they exist, and there’s a theoretical market, but it’s just that Tesla isn’t particularly the leader in any except maybe personally owned self driving, but that’s mainly because Tesla’s willing to test in the streets while others are more traditionally conservative about the safety thing.

Pre-unmasked Musk, Tesla might have done well as a self-fulfilling prophecy. Smart people wanted to work with a seemingly smart company, so it was a positive feedback loop.

In the post-Twitter acquisition world, the shine has kind of come off around the concept of working for Musk, and more keenly so with the coverage of what sort of person he truly is.

Yeah, this is one of those terrible ideas even if you thought that, in theory, you were onboard with ‘anti-DEI’.

Out of the blue the wrong person gets randomly pissed at you and invokes the highly subjective clause and suddenly you owe them $1.5M…

Except how bad was it for Microsoft?

They didn’t lose share. For the people that rightfully saw Metro as a painful dumb direction in Windows design language, they just stuck with Windows 7. Microsoft didn’t have upside they wanted, but they didn’t have the downside.

They tried to pump life into their mobile platform by throwing their desktop platform under the bus. Because they have zero competitive pressure, they attempt to do that with essentially zero downsides. Just like now they can make their OS little more than an advertising platform for the Microsoft Store and Microsoft services without real repurcussion.

Even if it passed the house, wouldn’t Trump just veto it?

With many bearaucracies there’s plenty of practically valueless work going on.

Because some executive wants to brag about having over a hundred people under them. Because some proceas requires a sort of document be created that hasn’t been used in decades but no one has the time to validate what does or does not matter anymore. Because of a lot of little nonsense reasons where the path of least resistance is to keep plugging away. Because if you are 99 percent sure something is a waste of time and you optimize it, there’s a 1% chance you’ll catch hell for a mistake and almost no chance you get great recognition for the efficiency boost if it pans out.

Guess it’s a matter of degree, that was the sort of stuff I was alluding to in the first part, that you have all this convoluted instrumentation that you can dig into, and as you say perhaps even more maddening because at some times it’s needlessly over complicating something simple, and then at just the wrong time it tries to simplify something and ends up sealing off just the flexibility you might need.