HN Simulatornew | past | comments | lists | submit | chii's commentslogin

they dont need to brick the machine - they can simply ban your online account, which they can use EULA to make you agree to before getting that account. You lose your games if the game requires online verification (which implies an account). This way, you won't be able to play your games purchased, even if it's a physical copy - you can only play games that don't have verification like this (i dont own a switch, so i dont know if this is actually true).

The law has superiority over the EULA, they could probably get away with disabling online multiplayer with concerns of cheating but I don't see any legal basis on how they could take away purchased games. That would go against any consumer right laws.

None of these would be consideration if the car itself was competitive. Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on which side you're on), tesla is now no longer competitive with the advent of the chinese EV manufacturers.

The last holdout being the USA, where the gov't is preferentially giving tesla their marketshare instead of letting open competition work in favour of consumers.

But like japanese cars, this will eventually also take root.


> None of these would be consideration if the car itself was competitive.

Why not? It looks like many people heard "vote with your wallet," and took it seriously. For better or worse, purchasing a Tesla, or not, has become a referendum on Musk himself.


I don't think you're giving enough value to the bad reputation Elon has among people with purchase power in Europe.

With that said I don't disagree that the market evolved and Tesla isn't what it was.


> you would be able to claim that as a work expense against your income

only if it was necessary for the job, and the employer would've otherwise paid for it.

But if the employer originally paid for an LLM, but chose not to now, i am not sure that you personally paying for one is tax deductible (might have to argue it out with the tax office).


people pay out of pocket for transport to job all the time. granted, $1k/month is quite high, and personally i would say that it ought to be an employer responsibility to provide the tooling (and bear all the costs). But it is understandable, if not foolhardy imho.

> people pay out of pocket for transport to job all the time.

Not an equivalent example, at all. Firstly, because people _have_ to have a car to get to work in 99% of the world (unfortunately). Also, it is a durable good where if you no longer need it, you can sell it and recover some of the value.


> backed by the Chinese state

as opposed to the current crop being backed by the US state? The ones that are basically crying foul at competition? The ones that unilaterally tries to dictate based on political friendliness and compliance (ala, anthropic getting banned)?

At least with open models, you can own the hardware and do the end to end. The current bottleneck is hardware availability at low cost, but i am guessing the chinese state is looking to build their own chip supply chains. I suspect they will succeed.


so lets say 10x domains. That's $100/year.

Your water bill costs more than this. Your toilet rolls cost more than this. And certainly a cleaner costs more than this, if you have a business premise.


Never stood arguments like these. The labor required to do this is very very minimal and money saved is money earned.

> Why do you assume that someone more intelligent would not be able to wield any AI tooling better than an average or below average human?

would someone who runs faster 100m also somehow drive better?


No, but someone who has trained their whole life to run fast, surely will be able to coach someone else to run faster than someone who has been on the couch watching television?

I use LLMs to great advantage, solving problems in my domain. I no longer make for loops.


> coach someone else to run faster

my point was that the new future where running faster doesn't matter any more might come, because everyone is driving (and potentially can't run much at all).


Would a rifle marksman be a better artilleryman than someone who never ever touched a gun?

See the beauty of analogies is you can make one to support any point.


but the analogy would be a riflemen trained to aim, and a person pressing button for guided missiles. How good you are at the original task is unlikely to matter when the new way supersedes the old way.

That's not how guided missiles work either…

so how does being a good shooter make you a better guided missile shooter?

Over someone who never fired any real weapon? Probably. You are not startled by violent sounds. You have intuition for ballistics, time to target, CEP, weather effects.

> Development cost for that game was around US $1.5 billion.

but is it making the game any better? Or is it just gold plating?


Not just gold, it's platinum plating. But no, the underlying gameplay of the series has barely changed at all since GTA 3 in 2001.

> violate treaties the US has signed.

not that has stopped the US doing something.

The fact is, copyright extensions have served corporate interests well and is likely to continue to get extended even more, and more draconian, given how many decompilation and recomps have been done recently.


Yes, obviously, that's why terms have been extended so far. My point is that, for the same reason, existing legal structures make this much harder to undo than to do.

> Then it turns out they weren't serious.

the classic revealed preference vs stated preference.


Which is bullshit. Or rather, attributing "revealed preferences" to people is. These are mostly fact about environment, not people.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: