Theft of what? There was no market for "memes in ghibli style commissioned by the original studio" which would probably cost hundreds if not thousands if hand-drawn. Nobody was going to pay for that. When it became freely available and instantly reproducible, that's the new market.
Don't want it to sound harsh but he's 94 years old. Could it be he just doesn't want to go out with a loss and is fine with his final score not fluctuating too much? Even if the markets don't correct/crash like his reserves seems to indicate, nobody can blame him for eventually being too early or not losing money opposed to gaining even more.
Because this strategy seems to be in line with what we've been reading ("buffet amassing cash") for the last 5 years at least?
Doing it in pure SQL is really impressive but I think the real tell-tale sign of peak "cracked engineer energy" is the maintained, decade-old blogspot site. Can't exactly put my finger on it, but really gives off "niche mastery". I don't even know the authors but I'm sure in the right circles a few dudes maintaining a blogspot site called "database architects" for a decade probably don't need an introduction.
Though I like the novelty of AI generated content, it kind of sucks dead internet theory is becoming more and more prevalent. YouTube (and all of the web) is already being spammed with AI generated slop and "better" video/text/audio models only make this worse. At some point we will cross the threshold of "real" and "generated" content being posted on the web and there's no stopping that.
Was a pump & dump by Casey Neistat. Lacked true popularity and network effects as it turned out people don't want to share unedited, raw footage. Social media is about looking good. So Casey just used his YouTube/influencer popularity at the time to pump metrics and then managed to sell it to CNN. No idea what CNN did with the tech or people but not much later they shut it down entirely.
>the lack of regulation in crypto has led to any tangible, groundbreaking innovation?
Is creating a ~$1T (and that's just BTC) asset class which went from obscure mailing lists to ETFs not innovation? Of this asset class, only 21M (divisible) units will ever exist[0] and to this date the original asset (again, BTC) has had no compromising (security) incidents deviating from its original mission (P2P ledger).
This doomsaying "doesn't deserve to survive" just seems mean-spirited without any actual arguments as to why it's not deserved for an asset class to exist which is truly deflationary (as in money supply) and shoving everything under "crypto" hoping for some outright ban because it's not regulated. It being unregulatable is a feature, not a bug.
[0] even with forks, the original whitepaper-protocol as we know it today will probably always be "BTC"
Huh? This is a peak performance in capitalism. Free market mechanics at its finest. This guy got roughly 2B$ to step down whilst still billing 50M$ annually as a "consultant".
To me, this seems like engagement clickbait targeting PG to promote an infotainment product (CTO coaching/course):
>there is no cookie banner law
There definitely is. The article explicitly states this:
>you need my consent when you want to track me
"tracking" here means storing data:
>store information in a visitor's browser is only allowed if the user is provided with "clear and comprehensive information", in accordance with the Data Protection Directive, about the purposes of the storage of, or access to, that information; and has given their consent (wikipedia)
The actual directive also explicitly states this
>consent may be given by any appropriate method enabling a freely given specific and informed indication of the user's wishes, including by ticking a box when visiting an Internet website (32002L0058.17)
So write unit tests automatically, change code later and then regenerate the unit tests? Now the code has a bug but the unit tests pass. I'm already seeing this today with devs using ChatGPT to quickly get the "test boilerplate" over and over.
They were cherry picked examples such as your "$10 fine" example to demonstrate that how in multiple places in the world people (and even children) are imprisoned under horrible circumstances, spend their entire lives behind bars and some simply die or get murdered within their prison cell before completing their sentences.
I or you don't have to prove any alliance here. I could be burning a Russian flag in front of your eyes and you would probably still find a reason why I cannot have criticism on one side doing exactly the same injustices and (criminal) acts as the regime of the flag I just burned. Let me be clear that Navalny should not have been treated and died the way he did and in a fair justice system people would be held accountable.
That doesn't mean I cannot state an opinion that it is repulsive things like this happen everywhere yet somehow one side doing it is worse than the other and claims the moral high ground. They are both bad.
I'm not sure why or what you are cherry picking here. I could easily quote pieces on how prisoners are treated in Guantanamo Bay, what happened in Abu Ghraib under American supervision or how we happily send billions of dollars to a country of which Save the Children said of the detained children "86% were beaten, 69% were strip searched, 60% spent time in solitary confinement, 68% were denied any healthcare, and 58% were denied visits or communication with family".
I'm not pro-Russia, pro-Putin or pro-anyone-who-detains-opposition-for-life. I'm also not pro people saying "Russia bad" when these things happen everywhere and somehow think they are morally superior.
Because OpenAI has first mover advantage, an actual product, the household "ChatGPT" name and starting anything from 0 would mean you start with a 3-0 disadvantage. Even if you threw a few billion dollars at it and attracted all of the top minds for at least a year - probably longer - you will be seen as the "ChatGPT alternative". How long before you can capture the momentum they have now with OpenAI? It's also a legal minefield, even when the majority of employees of OpenAI migrate, there will be all kinds of no-competes and conflicts of interest.
Strategically, this is probably a better move. Microsoft doesn't see their investment implode and they probably have some sort of plan to inject or absorb Sam and/or Microsoft back into OpenAI to prevent this in the future. Perhaps replacing the board of directors to prevent further infighting.
Not trying to be a low-effort reply but any Economy 101 textbook will theorize this kind of debt/interest/inflation mix is impossible. Practically, the world is too dependent on the USD in one way or another. If they try to break loose, they might get confronted with those military expenditures which is a good enough incentive to keep using USD as a global reserve currency.
I wonder how much the regression of ChatGPT is due to it adding new content which has its origin from ChatGPT. The blog and SEO spam with ChatGPT fluff is going through the roof, eventually all of that will get crawled too and the model will just get positively reinforced on its own output. Or is that not a concern?
Why would he be annoyed? The lifetime business value and goodwill from this public analysis probably earned a lot more for Patrick than any consulting gig Colin would have paid for.