I think you have to start a step back from cars: the people buying them. At least where I live having a large (and getting larger) 4wd seems to be a source of identity for them, and integral to their lifestyle.

I'm in a tiny part of the film industry. Bigger clients lend us licenses to Aspera and FileCatalyst when receiving files from them, but for our own trans-oceanic transfers I dug up an ancient program called Tsunami UDP and fixed it up just enough.

But the top of their game includes them make things up and getting things wrong. They always give their best, but they always include mistakes. It's a different trust proposition to a human.

A real, actual doctor told my brother, who has a chronic headache disorder, to just keep taking OTC painkillers.

You very specifically should not do that; you'll develop a medication overuse headache and be worse off than you were.

It gets worse, though. I was able to ask them a few questions about their symptoms, compare them to entries in the International Classification of Headache Disorders, and narrow it down to, iirc, two likely possibilities.

One of them was treatable. The treatment works. They still have pain, but can do stuff.

An AI that makes stuff up and gets stuff wrong isn't any different from the doctors we already have, except you can afford to get a second opinion, and you have the time available to push back and ask questions.

Edit: to expound on quality of the doctor - diagnosis and proposing a treatment was the work of several hours for me, a layman. A doctor should have known the ICHD existed. They should have been able to, in several minutes, ask questions about symptoms, reference the ICHD to narrow down likely diagnoses, and then propose a treatment with a "come back if that doesn't help".

All doctors make things up and get things wrong occasionally. The less experienced and more overworked they are, the more often this happens.

Again, LLMs aren't competing with the best human doctors. They're competing with doctors you actually have access to.

Yes, the options presented were overpay for something or roll your own. Could you not try to find a better alternative first?

It depends what you mean by "best players". Real Madrid have twice tried to just buy "Galacticos" - the generally-recognised superstar players - and cram them all into the same team, regardless of what position they were suited for. It didn't really work out like they hoped but it did get them a lot of attention.

They found more success when they bought the best team i.e. the best players in each position. Winning in football is difficult enough that you still need great tactics, management, experience, and luck to have actual sustained success. Money helps buy a lot of that, though.

But beyond Real Madrid your point is correct. More and more money is aggregating at the top, especially the English Premier League, and others are getting left behind.

I recommend turning on subtitles for Tree of Life. There's a lot of random whispered voice-overs, and without subs you'll have no idea who is speaking, let alone what they are saying.

I think that is at least partially intentional

Part of the reason offering suggestions is 'wrong' is because it implies that they haven't tried to think of solutions to their problem. You are unwittingly implying that you are smarter than they are, even if that is not your intention.

Yeah. Step 1 is basically to say “damn, that sucks … what do you think you might do?” (or other clarifying questions).

If feel like only someone who is kind of dumb or insecure would think that ...

Smart people will even talk to a rubber duck to solve problems, because sometimes there's something obvious you missed.

You just labeled a large portion of humanity "dumb or insecure". Yay you.

Am I wrong? (Apparently hn eats unicode emoji ao I can't do the bowling ball and pins wmoji :( )

I value this comment even though I don't really agree about how useful AI is. I recognise in myself that my aversion to AI is at least partly driven by fear of it taking my job.

All in a pretty bad state of wear, I imagine.

At least with ECC memory it's very obvious when its failing as you'll see reported correctable errors.

It's a bit weird to me that AoE 2 is the most popular of that series, considering how much more streamlined and balanced Age of Mythology is.

For example, getting to the 3rd age in AoE 2 ASAP is basically mandatory, but in AoM you can potentially start attacking from the 2nd age. On top of that, getting to the 3rd age in AoE 2 takes much longer than AoM. So there's basically a whole lot of wasted time at the start of an AoE 2 match.

You don't need to get to the 3rd age in AoE 2 necessarily, unless you're just sticking with a certain strategy or playing a certain map that warrants it. There are whole metas around going offensive in different ways at each age - drush (dark (1st) age militia units), scout rush, archer rush, tower rush, etc., before getting into the 3rd (castle) age. Usually you start with a scout, and if you're not using it for hunting then presumably you're using it for scouting and if an enemy villager strays too far from safety you can try picking them off. Better players can steal the opponent's boars or sheep, re-locate your town center with higher HP next to your opponent, etc.,.