I always find it odd that hacker news has such pessimism on technology advancements. It might not work now but give it another 5 to 10 years this may very well become reality. The pace of advancement in ML/AI is incredible.
Ill bet right now that level 5 self driving will never come. Whatever the pace of technological advancement.
If it can work, then a Tesla trained in SF would work on streets in India or Vietnam. But it cant, since driving data is cultural data and self driving narratives lie in a cultural blind spot.
Advanced economies have relative more stable traffic and rule of law which influences their driving.
If those disappear, old driving data is not going to apply.
When you look at history and tech there is only seemingly on way: progress. The thing is, it's not the case, and before you can deem something to be progress or not it usually is way too late (gas, asbestos, lead in gas, lead in paint, freon in fridges).
So what makes you dream now might be completely detrimental in the future. Not everyone thinks autonomous personal cars are a step forward, I personally think it's a step in the wrong direction.
Everybody asks "how" but nobody ask "why". "It's just progress why don't you like it?!"
Maybe... but probably not. Care to set up a $10 wager for 10 years from now for agreed-on terms about self driving?
I'm pretty pessimistic and jaded about computer technology. I've been in the field too long, and done too much computer security.
(1) Whatever guarantees you think the hardware is supposed to be making, it isn't. The hardware is now complex enough that just about any security boundary can be violated with enough creativity, if you have enough fancy features to try and keep performance marching forward if you've hit a process wall. Rowhammer. Intel's... everything. The various branch predictor things. Etc.
(2) Modern software, as a general rule, is dependency hell. You suck in hundreds of megabytes of code from God knows who, all of which is sucking in yet more, to do something. Nobody has any idea about all the code their project is sucking in, unless they've written it themselves. So, by that definition, nobody can actually understand their code, because some corner case, 15 layers down, can break something in absolutely unexpected and obscure ways.
(3) Murphy is an ass, and that corner case will happen, when you least expect it and are least able to debug it.
(4) Those piles of complexity, on top of piles of complexity, stacked on top of the previous complexity that exists to solve problems caused by the previous complexity, which was created to get around performance problems due to... etc, just go all the way down. It's all technical debt, and it leads to diminishing returns on investment, or, as I'm beginning to think, negative returns on investment. The more we try, the worse we make things. I'll point to Apple here, and the fact that despite the fact that they know messaging is the literal worst case for untrusted remote input, and that they've built explicit systems to sandbox it, firewall it, safely parse it, etc... it's still been, very recently, vulnerable to remote, zero-click, zero-user-awareness remote exploits that give the remote attacker root level privileges on the phone to do whatever they want and exfil whatever they want. Yay.
(5) The "culture" around modern software development is absolutely terrifying when it comes to anything safety critical. Fine, ship whatever when it comes to the latest addictive social media app, and it if crashes, welp. But when it comes to things in the physical world, that's absolutely not acceptable. When Tesla OTA'd updates to the brake firmware of CR's Model 3 that utterly sucked in the braking tests and it got better, everyone was so excited about how, see, OTAs can fix issues! Very few people asked how on earth Tesla had shipped defective braking firmware in the first place, if it was a quick fix. Personally, I'd like my brake system firmware well tested before release, and absolutely "hard" in ROM, so that it can't be updated. Look at the papers from a while back where the security people were able to remotely compromise a Jeep's braking system through remote cellular connectivity and the radio. That's just not OK in the slightest!
(6) As Tesla continues to demonstrate, the current way that ML/AI is done is absolutely rubbish for any sort of safety critical system, which automotive control systems are. "Lol, whoops, yeah... hey, thanks for reporting that your car can't take that turn that it used to take just fine!" is the sort of stuff that's funny, until it's tragic. Tesla's software practices are very clearly unsuited to anything remotely resembling the sort of safety critical systems they think they're developing.
That's all before you get into the physical limits we're approaching, the economic cost of modern fabs, and the fact that something like 40% of the world's high end silicon production is in a country that China very much appears to be planning to take back.
There's an awful lot of money chasing the hope, but I'm (obviously) very skeptical that much of anything useful will come out of it, other than making a bunch of people rich in the process of saying "Well, we're still 3-5 years out on this technology and I intend to retire before you can really call me out on the fact that in 3-5 years, it's still going to be 3-5 years out."
I work in the low level weeds, and I see what an utter disaster modern tech is. I'm increasingly using less and less of the stuff in my personal life, and my life is better for it.
It does not matter if it is a 5 min youtube video, that just wont happen to the majority of the population. Most people can't even change their battery in their car.
That price was for a global deal, not just the UK. 50.5M is likely higher than Giphy's UK revenues for a year. It does seem punitive.
TFA also says that Austria fined FB ~10M for the same deal.
It might all have been priced into the deal as some other comments have pointed out. If the goal is to truly deter, then the CMA should perhaps make FB unwind the deal at least in the UK.
Isn't the point here that they've already integrated the business - otherwise why not just comply with the disclosure requirement?
Also not sure that we can measure the value to Facebook in this way. This is about strengthening Facebook's core business which is worth (just guessing) > $500bn. How much value it adds is unknown but I bet it's a lot more than the acquisition price.
If you break your word about an acquisition, make it the cost of the purchase + 100% of any value that acquisition generated (a good rule of thumb would be ~10x the amount of money spent on supporting that BU or the total amount of revenue, whichever is higher).
Seems like everyone is concerned about moral hazards for normal crimes yet white collar crimes like this are extremely underpunished to the point that you can factor that fine into your P&L.
Essentially they must allow the user the option of Apple as a payment mechanism to ensure their feature is unbroken. The no lower part is that they can only discount up to whatever Apple's cut would be if they use their own payment mechanism. Related to the first point to prevent "soft disables" like setting Apple pay price at something dramatically worse that few would pay. Charging $13 through Apple and $10 through theirs ensures they get their $10 no matter the customer choice. Or they could call the volume worth the cut and charge $10 for both methods.
Setting it worse opens up effectively a "soft disable" like Apple price at $1000 and their price at $1.
If they for some reason decided to charge $1 through Apple and $1000 through their own that poor decision is no skin off Apple's nose.
You're just hating on crypto and finding reasons for it. Crypto has uses cases that people are using at the moment and it's not up to you to decide how people should decide to use systems. If they want to own some NFTs because it's part of a game or simply to hold some generative art, that is their choice.
The idea that all nuclear reactors for all time will be expensive to build and maintain is exactly what newer reactors are trying to overcome.
Crazy how in the 60s reactors were build by small teams with low millions and today you need an army of people and 30 billion.
Nothing about a nuclear reactor in inherently expensive. The reason current PWR style reactors are expensive is because they require a gigantic civil engineering project, long term financing and very expensive costume steam turbines and costume reactor vessels.
We could live in world where conventional turbines from natural gas plants are used, a team of only a few people manage like 10 reactors at the same time and the capital build cost of the plant is less then that of a gas plant.
There is nothing based on first principle that prevents this. Sadly nuclear technology fell so out of favor, and at the same time the regulatory agency basically made progress on non PWR impossible that we are decades behind where we should be.
Thankfully Canada has realized this and has adopted a new framework for nuclear regulation. In the US FINALLY the DoE has admitted that their regulatory framework makes no sense and they are attempting to slowly change it as well.
The people who think climate change is important enough to not allow more coal, gas and oil to be burned.
If people can do so more cheaply through other means they should naturally do that first, through the common results of closing nuclear plants has always been an increase use of gas, oil and/or coal.
NFT license are dependent on the project. That's up to you to research. NFT license from crypto kitties allow you up to 100k. BAYC has full commercial rights.
You wrap the token into the new standard if there is a new one when there is a new standard. Look at cryptopunks, they are wrapped into ERC-721.
