The claims of the actual paper are much more nuanced and not anything near how the BBC headline frames it. I think this is more a case of bad science reporting than bad science.
I would maybe argue that the vast majority of science reporting especially in large news outlets is bad science reporting since the modern media ecosystem has strong preference for sensationalism.
It's why there's so much distrust of science globally. We've cured cancer! Except we haven't, it was mouse studies. Except we have! Except not really, that drug failed it's first clinical trial. Except we have! Except that's just mechanistic reasoning not proven by any observational studies.
So then people think, wow, these scientists have no idea what they're doing and just make stuff up all the time to get attention. Which they aren't - most peer-reviewed studies include a mountain of caveats and I've rarely seen, even in large meta-analyses and Cochrane Reviews, papers that make half as strong a claim as ad-revenue obsessed news editors do with their hyperbolic headlines.
If BBC hadn't editorialized, most of us likely wouldn't have clicked it. The paper is interesting but more interesting when you read it through the lens of "does this validate the health benefits of bird-watching?" which is a perspective BBC provided
The cheapest configuration of the original model was $329 in 2012 [0]. Even when corrected for inflation, that would still be less than $500 in today's money -- so quite a bit less than $700!
Is the comparison unfair because today's model is much more powerful than the one from 14 years ago? Perhaps. But perhaps it shouldn't be compared to the past, but to its relative competitors?
Not really unfair, as the basic use case is still the same for either model.
A toilet from a hundred years ago in the same product tier serves the same function as one today. Old models were also more expensive when adjusted for inflation, but today's toilets can tackle more turds with less water.
The alternative approach leads to those "costs have dropped by 7 orders of magnitude in the last 50 years" style of deceptive graphs popular among people with an agenda to insist AI memory price inflation isn't a real problem.
Right. The prices are up for Nvidia’s benefit (and Micron, Sandisk by extension).
I know it’s now a trope to say “an incoming Democratic Congress should…” but there are really serious questions to ask about the means by which Nvidia is securing such a radically high value buy-and-hold strategy, and whether it amounts to deceptive channel stuffing.
The whole tech industry is using apparent demand for Blackwell GPUs as a proxy for AI demand, when this is a wholly broken metric because Nvidia seems to be gaming it, and everyone (consumer and business alike) is paying more as a result.
The whole supply demand spherical cow model of capitalism really breaks down when suppliers decide they'd collectively use their cartel to not engage in demand and instead gouge prices.
Sure, but that tells you that the upgraded specs and pricing is a conscious decision made by Apple, not something forced by AI. Making an entry-level small screen equivalent of the 11-inch iPad is always an option. They’re choosing not to take it.
Memory and storage is expensive as hell, so they're gonna ration it for their more expensive devices.
Same reason this year, for the first time ever, Apple announced their new Pro phones (and the ultra-expensive Duo) but no base-model iPhone 18. They're paying more for memory so they're gonna use it on the devices where they make more on a sale.
More like they were not able to find a pretext to sell it for more.
I can open my local store and will see shitty 8/128 Android tablets for less than 150 euro. If memorypocalypse was the main reason for pricing new ipad mini as it is, the budget tablet segment would be completely dead because manufacturers just wouldn't be able to afford memory at all.
> I think the most important thing in any project you’re building...is how completely and accurately you articulate exactly what you want.
That's what code does.
I think he really wants to be having a debate about whether we ought to be using different coding languages, more based on natural languages, more declarative.
I think the law provides an interesting perspective. It has a technical, formalized language, built out of a natural language. Since laws and contracts can be very high-stakes, the technical/formalized aspects arose out of a need to express hard constraints using a language whose complexities seem to be built more for story-telling.
Laws are full of holes and contradictions. For example, megacorps evade tax. We want them to pay the tax. See, the _intent_ is for them to pay, but the _execution_ of the intent fails. If you take the current laws as the basis and want to improve upon them, how do you improve? What counts as improvement? "Megacorps must pay tax too" is a clear intent/goal. It captures the requirement. If you read the laws, can you deduce this requirement? Can you improve upon them without the requirement?
Odd I thought that only proves them right, it's a best attempt with natural language by capital and the state, the two major forces of power in our society, and they still get burned.
"mutually exclusive" isn't a good way to think of it. "Tradeoffs" is much better.
iPhones are aimed at the many millions/billions of technically unsophisticated users who don't care about rooting their phone, but would be very unhappy to get phished out of their life savings.
Ah. So Apple -must- take freedoms away from everyone to install any software they want, to protect us. They could not possibly have a "format and void your warranty to unlock all features" switch on the motherboard like chromebooks have. Or the "get a one time warranty-voiding code from manufacturer" code like Samsung and other Android vendors have. Apple must make sure the path to freedom does not exist, for Grandma.
Grandma does not need the freedom to install the DeFlock or ICEBlock to help protect herself and her neighbors, right? Tim Cook is a Trump doner but of course has no political bias, and remains confident ICE and law enforcement always behave ethically so there is nothing to fear.
A corporation takes away basic freedoms of people over the tools they use to communicate with society, and then consumers get on the internet in public forums and -defend- them for it. Unbelievable.
I really hope you do not vote with this type of thinking.
So rather than address the substance of my comment, you hand waive it away and argue we should just let people give up freedoms to choose what software they install without even trying to educate them on risks or alternatives.
Tech CEOs will always do the right thing and act in public interest before profits or political favors, right?
They would never censor an app that the public largely wanted, right?
Fortnite did not pay their Apple tax, so no one got to install Fortnite. For safety.
To be clear, Google is just as bad. I do not use or recommend any products from either company.
I use laptops, desktops, or nothing, and get along just fine.
You've committed to building your app using canvas but realize you actually wanted the DOM. Now you can dig yourself deeper rather than fixing the original mistake!
...all the advantages listed under "The advantages of bringing the DOM to Canvas" apply to using the DOM generally.
Actually, I can see the case for having a primarily canvas-based app that, nevertheless, sprinkles in some DOM. It's the presentation here that rankles.
(Extra points lost for using "intractable" where interactive could be used; intractable isn't an English word while interactive is. Now, since I'm not a purist, interactable can be used as a noun in contexts like game programming that need such a word, since no such English word exists. But using it as an adjective only seems OK when not a native speaker and when not making an announcement. It just reinforces the impression that they don't know what they are doing.)
What? Intractable (meaning difficult to manage or solve), is a valid English adjective, the opposite of tractable. It has nothing to do with the word interact.
"Facebook is not a person. Facebook should not have "rights" nor "political views"."
In the USA, the supreme court has ruled a corporation DOES in fact have rights. Like the lawsuit of advertising medicine that a state banned-- the SC ruled that was infringing the rights of corporations to "express" their speech.
As someone from UK, I find this whole "Corporations have more rights than I do" very disturbing but thats how it is
That's why I write "should" and not "does". And in the UK and the EU, corporations also have more rights than they should (according to my worldview anyway). I think you should find the UK and EU laws disturbing in the same way as the USA's. Corporations also have way less liabilities (example: imagine if you could deduct your "operating expenses" (e.g. food) from your taxes, in the same way corporations do) and face way less penalties for their misdeeds than you do, which a bigger problem.
While you're right in a literal sense, I think it's pretty hard to dispute that Zuckerberg can operate unabated due to his majority ownership of voting shares.
That's actually a pretty good illustration of my point. Because Facebook has many of the rights that people have (own property, enter contracts etc.) but very few of the liabilities (can't be imprisoned, rarely ever pays any fines in practice), Zuch can use it as a proxy to do a bunch of shady stuff, that he wouldn't do if he risked being held personally liable for it.
If companies as a legal concept didn't exist in their current form, then we wouldn't have this problem of one person, or more commonly many people, using them as a proxy to get away with a bunch of unethical stuff. Often way more unethical that whatever Facebook / Zuck is doing, such as destroying ecosystems, prioritizing profits over worker safety, etc.
There are obvious reasons why it's expedient to grant the same rights to a collective organization as to its constituents. If you're getting confused by the abstraction, you're welcome to pretend that the board of Facebook (which is comprised of humans) are exercising their individual rights to free speech.
I'm not the one being confused here, though it's fun to see you're already resorting to ad hominem. It reveals a lack of actual arguments, as does your appeal to obviousness.
But yes, I'd like to see the board of Facebook and the boards of many other companies being held liable for the actions of those companies. But for some reason, it's only ever "expedient" to grant companies the rights rightfully belonging to people, and never "expedient" to impose the same sorts of liabilities on them as on people. (Not that a non-physical entity such as a company could ever practically face the same penalties as a physical person anyway, which is another ("obvious" in your parlance) reason not to grant them those rights.)
If I was interested in going down the ad-hominem route I'd claim that you simply see the status quo as "obvious" because you lack the power of imagination to consider a more sensible alternative.
In fact, I think your argument is so backwards it actually supports my case. Why do I need to "imagine" that the owners of the company are using their rights to free speech as individuals (which is obviously not what is actually happening)? Why can't they just actually use those individual rights?
You don't like a trawling boat emptying out the lake in your village? Just imagine that the boat's captain is using a fishing rod to do the same, that's clearly a comparable situation!
they understand, the problem is that they agree with Meta.
They are happy with the outcome but have no courage to say it directly so they hide it behind these "questions"
You’re talking about the transition to modern language. While there may (or may not) have been a large single step around 100,000 years ago, the subject here is the common foundation that preceded it.
You don’t have to have much experience with dogs to know they understand words and very basic sentences around things they care about and understand (food, going for walks, prey, “business”, approval/disapproval).
My understanding is that while dogs can understand words and put them together to understand basic (even novel) commands, they do not generally have a comprehension of syntax, which is an essential part of language. To them, a sentence is just a bag of concepts bundled together without structure.
In terms of the human evolutionary record, we have no idea what our ancestral species spoke like, compared to say a chimpanzee. None of them are around to tell us.
My intuition tells me that human evolution grokked language. Maybe like GPT it very quickly went from being complete gibberish to freakishly coherent. A handful of words and grammar rules leads to remarkable complexity. But that's a guess.
I think a generous interpretation of this comment is that voting, writing reps, and protesting (likely the permitted kind) are somewhat ineffectual at the level of policy change especially if the goal is federal-level change.
Even at the state level, you're still reined in by the fact that America operates on the slave economy logic that land represents people which results in rural communities that have a few hundred in population with the same table stakes as a rep in a million+ constituent district. You can write to your rep all you want but if Bubba from Farmtown, USA says trans people should be barred from youth sports [0] and he can get a dozen of his other buddies from the depopulated rural localities to co-sponsor it, it doesn't matter what your rep says or does.
The end result is that effective organizing has to be hyperlocal - this means showing up to county/municipal council meetings, sitting on neighborhood planning groups, broadening awareness in your community via doorknocking and public events.
Specifically to that point against protesting, some forms of 'protest' that seem pervasive with groups like No Kings and 50501 are effectively self-neutered. The vast majority of those protests are permitted with police escorts.
On it's face, these 'protests' are similar to those of the past - people show up, they wave signs, they chant. But like a child imitating being a fighter pilot, it accomplishes nothing real. The point of a protest is disruption - economic disruption, traffic blocking, etc - because that disruption buys you leverage with the local government. When you can say 'I can shut down your arteries at any time so meet me halfway with our demands or face millions in economic damage', you have an effective protest. This is how the Europeans do it between burning down their Supreme Courts to piling up tons of manure outside of Parliament - and that gets actual results.
Asking your local government liaison for permission to say mean things about a federal official does nothing except give them a chance for easy points with the crowd. Nothing changes, all that energy and labor that goes into organizing a safe protest dissipates, and the status quo remains fixed, even consolidated now that the already limited shared pool of movement labor has been siphoned off into a performative act.
reply