YOU have to pay the energy company for the extra electricity you put into the grid! Like… What‽‽‽

That might be logical in some situations. Where there’s surplus in the grid and it plays the role of amortizer of what you give it. They can’t just shut you off when they are getting too much load. Or they can but prefer to have a soft curve where you get less and less until you start paying for what you give.

Like water is a resource, but you do pay for water disposal (that is, I live in Russia, and there’s a separate line on the bill for what goes into sewers), or, if someone provides passive cooling service somewhere, you might pay for the heat you give away. Even if that’s energy.

The ability to have smart cars that improve fuel efficiency by adjusting to traffic conditions may very well compensate for the increased electricity demand created by data centers.

That just reads mindblowingly stupid for me after only one semester of the “automatic guidance of trains” subject with a few simple methods of numeric optimization. And I wasn’t studying very well, to say the least.

The rest of what you write feels as if you’d missed the whole “digital computer” thing and what it already allows us to do since 1970s and that is being done since 1970s.

Wouldn’t doing anything harder than usual be a flag about you then?

By bypassing all that they won’t immediately know who owned it through whatever machine IDs computers have on them.

There’s probably enough redundancy in such possibilities to track you not to care about this particular thing technically .

It’s just an insult to the user and they are assholes, dealing with assholes is a bad sign similar to black cats crossing your path. Don’t deal with assholes.

No need to explain this technically, you might think it’s better, but you are implicitly supporting the idea that without hard proof it’s fine that they are doing all those weird things. It’s not, you don’t have to prove anything. They are assholes, don’t deal with them, don’t keep taking insults. Simple.

If something is beneficial to the side with more negotiating power and is practical to do, it happens.

It wasn’t plausible when Internet connectivity for accounts on local machines wasn’t a given always everywhere.

And it wasn’t that important for them.

Now both have changed enough.

Also I think all stable continuous changes of mass where single person doesn’t change much are predictable, similarly to Asimov’s Foundation (except there it was presented as something a virtuous genius does to help humanity, not quite how life works).

So expecting Microsoft and others to break their dicks is infantile. I think they’ll succeed fully inside their strategic definition, their model, one can say.

Where anything divergent and interesting can happen is the fringes. Like Reticulum, Briar, hobbyist weak hardware, technologies that will emerge occasionally without mass economic pressure. Toys and jokes.

Linux is glamorous.

While what’s said here is true, it can also be said about old cast iron pipes or 50s brick buildings with bitum and asbestos, and such.

Would you pay 500 dollars a month to have the possibility to do your movie searches? Or alternatively, would you like your LLM of choice to counter that, having read all your emails and browser history, you are probably interested in a totally different movie that just happens to be playing now at a nearby cinema?

There might be a more direct parallel than originally intended in this with the explanation how one person works hard all day and makes less than another person who pushes a few buttons. The latter knows which buttons to push.

This technology is useless for my movie searches, but it might be useful in the same way as radar was for air defense.

BTW, I’m not sure what I’d choose if offered to pay 500 dollars for knowing what that movie is. There’s one girl, if she’d be interested too to find that movie, perhaps I would.

So if such an expensive technology would allow this kind of nuanced search, and more seemingly efficient wouldn’t, then we have a use case.

Or a model allowing to predict actions of other people sufficiently well, based on seemingly not precise enough data. However much it would cost, that would be justified, similarly to high-frequency trading, because it would operate on all existing value, not just what it generates.

I’m not saying that it IS all a bubble, by the way, as I can’t read the future and these gigantic profits might well materialize in the future. I’m just saying that “bubble” and “useless” are different.

I know, I was making two points, one is that everything is relative (what you’ve just agreed to), another is that it might not at all be a bubble.

Well, one can say then also that US military is a bubble, it also hogs resources far bigger for the same results that poorer nations achieve. There are some things it does that can’t be compared to others because nobody has the need or that much money, but what can be compared is not even factor 10+.

It keeps getting that funding because of the position in the world it occupies.

Or one can say that the Danish kingdom sitting on the Sound relying on custom fees for its budget and then going on adventures with mercenary troops was a bubble. That bubble was inflated and burst a few times before that happened finally (something-something Kiel canal), and for long enough periods of history that just was the reality.

It’s a relative thing if something is sustainable or not. When people are talking about Earth being expected to exist for enough time to be more afraid of global warming and microplastics and such, it means that Earth’s existence itself is usually assumed to be indefinitely sustainable in our frame of evaluation.

So what you said is true, but dotcoms also were a bubble.

In Russia it’s an anecdote about two cowboys with one saying in the end “Bill, I think we’ve both just eaten shit for free”.

What if it’s not a bubble?

So I tried using some AI chatbots to find a movie recently, it made up a few, none being the answer.

(The question was about a historical movie, made in perhaps 1970s by the feeling, set someplace in southern France somewhere around 1650s, has a few beautiful views of nature and castles ; one scene where a guard captain enters a room, asks a question, as a power gesture drinks a glass of wine on the table and a minute later falls ; another scene where for whatever reason a rapier fight happens in something like a tavern, two women in pastel dresses are descending by an open ladder from the second floor, seeing the brawl take our pocket pistols, one of them is stabbed with a rapier ; another scene where a guy is getting questioned with his feet over the fire ; another when another guy is climbing a tower clinging at brick mortars outside and hears guards’ boots on the ladder very loudly ; when I was a kid and saw that, someone said it’s an adaptation of something by Lope de Vega, but I’m not sure that’s correct ; that’s just in case someone reading this knows such a movie.)

But some googling sessions they do optimize, without you the user ever having to browse a webpage, and just getting a textual answer. That’s a valid use.

And some other processes. They don’t have to be useful for all things they are applied to, just some profitable.

Solar energy for computation perhaps, but cooling would be too expensive.

In an existing ecosystem of space mining and processing of all required elements, with no need to exit gravity wells, could be microchips. I don’t think we are closer to that than Vinland settlers were to thirteen colonies.

That part of the problem makes rules of the game more similar to how they were before the Internet. It’s almost a return to normalcy.

If this system was in use by car companies, the consequences would be similar, only 2 or 3 companies worldwide, making a few models each, all of them much more expensive than what they are now.

And, as it happens, those 2 or 3 companies not really following the regulations, practically employing inspectors instead. Like Boeing.

I mean, there’s also no safe touchscreen on a mobile phone, and one would think a main personal mobile communication device should have the least disruptable user interface possible.

A stylus makes some sense, it’s a more convenient tool for drawing on a screen. But touchscreens must die.

I’m trying to dial someone or do anything at all in a dark place, I have to look with my eyes at a burning screen (notably with some crappy flat design of all UI elements, as is custom today) and try to hit it with my fingers. My fingers notably come from factory without backlight or auto-aim.

I could just remember which key is which, and rely on my tactile feeling to find them.

I’m trying to do anything at all in frosty weather (that kind when you feel like scratching your skin, normal winter, minus 10 Celsius is enough to feel that), I have to take off my glove and try to hit whatever with my fingers which become obviously clumsier under such temperatures.

And I can’t simultaneously do something and look at the display, because I’m poking my fingers at that display to do something!

And it’s easier to do something you didn’t intend.

I hope everything with a touchscreen dies as a consumer good, similarly to young nuclear scientist kits for toddlers, asbestos roof tiles, lead paint, you get the idea. Some things are bad.

That’s like muscle atrophying from lack of gravity. The gravity was the importance of such nuance for, well, making money. In this analogy.

Where did it go - well, to picking the right advertising and promotion system, the right platform. Good or bad attention is more important now than reputation.

One could foresee this when the Web, consisting of web directories, web rings and people talking about things in small communities on forums and in groupchats, with their ICQ number being their main identifier, was defeated by Google. It was the first indication that reputation loses to discoverability.

So, why are they cutting this - because this level has become subject to a higher level of competition. Where the specific business going bad doesn’t matter.

It’s new quantities, but an old mechanism, though. Humans were making up shit for all of history of talking.

In olden days it was resolved by trust and closed communities (hence various mystery cults in Antiquity, or freemasons in relatively recent times, or academia when it was a bit more protected).

Still doable and not a loss - after all, you are ultimately only talking to people anyway. One can build all the same systems on a F2F basis.

This and many other new problems are solved by applying reputation systems (like those banks use for your credit rating, or employers share with each other) in yet another direction. “This customer is an asshole, allocate less time for their requests and warn them that they have a bad history of demanding nonexistent books”. Easy.

Then they’ll talk with their friends how libraries are all possessed by a conspiracy, similarly to how similarly intelligent people talk about Jewish plot to take over the world, flat earth and such.

Yes. Except this works only in dynamic, that is, while USD keeps devaluing compared to much of the world’s currencies and goods, that might help exports.

And also revitalize the economy by somewhat hurting speculative assets.

But IRL it’s a gamble, and those who have power keep power.

No. It won’t be. But things change. Some buildings crumble. Some are reinforced and kept standing. Where there were streets, new buildings are erected. Where there were rivers and bulwarks, streets are made with pipes underneath.

So this particular building will have to change to avoid crumbling. Well, as it always happens.

It would be good (and for the US as well), but it’s possible the ship has sailed.

See, such racket schemes, if we use the tone of the article which I mostly agree with, are benefit not only to such US companies. They have already become popular and they will continue to be used.

So no. Unless suddenly a few liberal-democratic revolutions happen and everyone suddenly feels peaceful and reasonable.