I have noticed in just the past two weeks or so, a lot of the naysayers have changed their tunes. I expect over the next 2 months there will be another sea change as the network effect and new frameworks kick in.
I'd say that it's probably not a play against open source, but more trying to remove/change the bottlenecks in the current chip production cycle. Nvidia likely doesn't care who wins, they just want to sell their chips. They literally can't make enough to meet current demand. If they split off the inference business (and now own one of the only purchasable alternatives) they can spin up more production.
That said, it's completely anti-competitive. Nvidia could design a inference chip themselves, but instead the are locking down one of the only real independents. But... Nobody was saying Groq was making any real money. This might just be a rescue mission.
DAT-style content updates and signature-based prevention are very archaic. Directly loading content into memory and a hard-coded list of threats? I was honestly shocked that CS was still doing DAT-style updates in an age of ML and real-time threat feeds. There are a number of vendors who've offered it for almost a decade. We use one. We have to run updates a couple of times a year.
By 2025 the majority of applications will use AI in some way (mostly to allow for sloppy user input), in 5 years there will be no non-AI applications.
For example, in healthcare (because... day job), you will be interacting with an AI as the first step for your visits/appointments, AI will work with you to fill out your forms/history, your chart will be created by AI, your x-ray and lab results will be read by AI first, and your discharge instructions will be created on the fly with AI... etc. etc. etc. This tech is deploying today. Not in a year, today. The only thing that's holding it up is cost and staff training.
I'd just love to see them keep this same energy when dealing with the actual police and end qualified immunity. They won't. But it would be the right thing to do.
If there is anything that can actually get a tech worker unionization effort going, it's going to be the back and forth on these RTO policies.
Folks have tried in the past around non-competes, or equity tomfoolery, but this is people's lives, family, kids schooling, etc. We know WFH works, if you spend the time to make it work, and upsetting folks lives doesn't make for positive employee relations.
It's simple. All the "Big Brains" missed the real risks of Web 1.0/Web 2.0, focusing only on the positives in a time of hope and economic growth. Now, we have an internet that focuses on how everything is terrible, and a new tech abruptly hits the scene. Of course, the current "Big Brains" meet the clout need to point out how the sky might fall.
AI will be transformative, but it's more likely to follow previous transformations. Unintended consequences, sure, but largely an increase in the standard of living, productivity, and economic opportunity.
Honestly, as someone who does this, Bard seems to be much better at writing natural emails. It's just easier to dump some thoughts in to bard and ask it to redraft, then fluff it a little to sound like me.
If you have a disease that causes organ damage, it's not that ridiculous. Look at the referenced studies. Multiple studies by different organizations performed 6-12 months out showing persistent fatigue, body aches, headaches, cognitive issues, loss of taste/smell, kidney function. Seems to be a real phenomenon.
This is my knee jerk reaction, but then I ask myself if I really want Trump (or Pelosi depending on your political persuasion) deciding how my search engine and social networks work.
Feeling a big "NOPE" on that one.
Customers need to make it unacceptable for FAANG to act this way... Good luck on that tho.
Unfortunately, they have been very good at slowly raising the temperature so the frog (read:us) doesn't jump out of the pot.
"Quality Federal Health Insurance for all" = yes
"Medicare for all" = Terrible idea
Medicare is insufficient coverage. Almost all folks on Medicare need supplemental insurance, or a state plan to actually get the care they need. Medicare under pays on claims, typically under the costs of providing care. Every industry group, union, medical association, who has looked at all the various plans has said it would lead to more hospital bankruptcies, particularly in rural areas.
Now, if you want to break the current system and force a government take over of the whole system it's not a bad idea, but selling it as something that would give folks the care they need is very disingenuous.
Personally, I think that Gab is a dumpster fire that it's best to avoid, yet I am very sensitive to browsers making content/editorial decisions for their users. From a security perspective teaching users to jump around browser protections is never a good idea. It's going to bite us in the butt at some point.
WFH, flood of Dev hiring, increasingly hostile worker relations, a bunch of web 2.0 folks finally retiring, VC money drying up...
take your pick.
Software is just crappy these days.