If you go five minutes into the video, he talks about a group of farmers that refused a $26 million deal with an AI company. I am happy to see people with big standards and not be pushed round by some big company.
It's ok to be angry about capitalism
- Thread starter XsjadoBlaydette
- Start date
Recommended Videos
OpenAI drops plans to release an adult chatbot - Engadget
OpenAI has "indefinitely" abandoned plans to release an a erotic chatbot for adults following concerns from employees and investors.
www.engadget.com
The previous generations of DLSS were never needed either, nor was RTX, nor was any other previous new graphics tech. And every one of them added more silicon, more power usage, and more waste heat that needed managed to your GPU. If you want to demand a return to CGA, feel free.
There has literally never been a case where a graphics card manufacturer forced people to turn on a specific filtering technique on all applications. I have no idea where you've got this one from other than just it being AI-related and therefore must be the worst case scenario. Like every other feature, it's going to be something developers choose to use, not to use, or give an option to use and you'll likely be able to globally force it on or off in the nvidia settings if you really want to.
Previous generations of DLSS (it's been around since 2019 and if you have an RTX 20-series GPU or newer you have support for it and have probably actually used it unless you set custom graphics settings in every game) got popular specifically because they improve FPS substantially. They do that by actually rendering the game at a lower resolution than the target resolution and then scale it up, using deep learning transformers to fill in the missing details. Done to a limited degree, the quality loss is not noticeable, though at some settings meant to maximize FPS the rendering resolution can be low enough relative to the target resolution that the result is mediocre at best. But at that point you'll get better looking results playing at a lower target resolution with the same FPS target because the amount of upscaling will be less dramatic.
Good to know. Only further proves my point that it's not needed to the first point. Conversations finished and I made my points before. AI is a waste of everyone's time unless it's actually used for good medical purposes and finding cancer. None of this bullshit in the entertainment/techindustry or trying to replace people, because they don't want to pay real people to do their jobs.
If you don't have anything else to add to that, then there's nothing left to discuss. Don't care and and I am not dragging this conversation out.
Meta and YouTube found liable in social media addiction trial
A woman has been awarded $6m in a verdict that could have implications for hundreds of other cases in the US.
www.bbc.co.uk
Courts find that Meta and Alphabet (YouTube) liable for causing harm because their products that were harmful and addictive. This is particularly notable because there are quite a lot of other cases in process elsewhere in the USA.
I feel that in ways the US court system can be better at holding companies to account than my own country's. Although it remains to be seen whether this ends up surviving the tidal wave of legal effort and lobbying these megacorps are going to spend overturning it on appeals all the up to SCOTUS.
Monopoly Round-Up: Bombshell Document Details Watergate-Style Corruption at the Antitrust Division
From Ticketmaster to Paramount to Hewlett Packard, the Trump administration and corporate America are involved in an orgy of corruption. Finally, we are seeing the first rea investigation take place.
www.thebignewsletter.com
So, this is just one article and there's a load more to read here, but the Trump administration has been dynamiting antitrust cases.
As background, Biden's antitrust regime under Lina Khan had generated substantial public support (albeit corporate hostility), including among elements of the Republican Party. With Trump newly installed, there was plenty of discussion that his administration may continue enforcing antitrust. Just over a year in, the dust has settled and we know the answer: unless its victimising Trump's enemies, federal antitrust enforcement is dead.
Gail Slater was the new chief of antitrust, who appeared willing to continue antitrust. However, Pam Bondi eventually cut Slater's legs out from under her by forcing her to fire her deputies, before eventually drumming Slater out.
The latest antitrust issue was Live Nation / Ticketmaster case. So, it turns out that one Monday, the DoJ lawyer turned up to court and told the judge that the federal government had settled with Ticketmaster. The judge was furious that he hadn't been told these settlement negotiations had been going on without his knowledge. But get this: the lead DoJ lawyer didn't know about them either. Numerous states that had joined the case - both Republican and Democrat - want to continue the case without the federal government.
Anyway, documentation seems to be coming out revealing stuff that's going on here, which appears to be the same old story: well connected lobbyists (in this case, a man called Mike Davis well in with Trump and Bondi) nobbling powerful individuals to shut the cases down. This is also raising the spectre of whether its corruption.
It's the Trump administration. There's no spectre of corruption; it's the fucking Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
Here is some excellent news.
www.foxbusiness.com
Supreme Court tosses $1B copyright verdict in record companies' battle over illegal internet downloads
The Supreme Court unanimously ruled Wednesday that internet providers are not liable for copyright infringement by their users, delivering an opinion in Cox v. Sony and tossing a $1 billion verdict.
www.foxbusiness.com
By the way if anyone gets sued by a copyright group immediately make it public and get the public on your side. I can’t stand these non-innovative copyright monopoly fuckwits.Here is some excellent news.
Supreme Court tosses $1B copyright verdict in record companies' battle over illegal internet downloads
The Supreme Court unanimously ruled Wednesday that internet providers are not liable for copyright infringement by their users, delivering an opinion in Cox v. Sony and tossing a $1 billion verdict.
I think one of the interesting things here - as we didn't totally get the message the last few time there was a major hiccup with the oil/gas supply - is that everywhere that doesn't have lots of fossil fuels it can dig out of the ground (e.g. Europe, China) needs to stop using fossil fuels for power. The USA is the second country in five years to demonstrate how easy it is to fuck everyone's economy. And food and medicine supply, potentially.
In a way, this is likely to be a boon for fossil fuel use in countries that can cheaply extract them like the USA, because it will drastically reduce oil demand and thus oil price, presumably close to that of extraction. (I assume eventually extraction will become more expensive as the lower-hanging fruit is taken and everyone will move to nuclear and renewables.)
I do note that the current crisis has, possibly, finally silenced a load of major voices in my country harping on about oil and gas. Fossil fuels for power generation should have had their day, for both economic and security reasons. I don't want to hear another wanker talk about the fucking North Sea, except maybe in the context of a limited stopgap whilst we transition.
China will never do that in the near term since you can't wage war and or defend yourself without fossil fuels, and if you don't use it for civilian purposes less people will become trained in operating the infrastructure of it. That said we do need more solar, wind, and gasp nuclear.
The EU too would be foolish for doing this, it lacks enough rare-earth deposits in the short term for battery production also CV90 IFVs, and Leopards 2 Tanks still need fuel.
The military already have a ton of staff with specialised skills not readily in civilian use, and they train them. The idea that they can't teach people to run a combustion engine is just absurd. Secondly, combustion engines aren't just going to disappear because we get nearly all our mains energy through nuclear / renewables. There will still be combustion engines in vehicles, generators, smaller devices, etc. which civilians will use and learn, they're not going to all suddenly die out.
Oil will still be around in some form for a host of reasons, one of the largest likely to be chemicals manufacturing (e.g. plastics): the idea isn't to delete oil as a commodity from the economy, it's to ensure that the incredibly fundamental societal need of power generation doesn't stop or become ruinously expensive every time some dictator flips out.
Also, let's not forget that as long as it isn't needed in huge quantities, oil can be made. Synthetic oil (Europe has plenty of coal) or biofuel. Plus you also need to consider the viability of hydrogen fuel cells.
At best, your argument here is Europe exchanging one scarcity for another, but even still you're picking the worse scarcity.
Remember, batteries are not consumables. A barrel of oil is gone once you've burnt it, but you've got a battery forever: runs out of power, recharge it, recycle it. All those rare earths? You can keep stuff you already bought with recycling; but you're not reconstituting oil from CO2. Run out of oil, the lights go off immediately. Run out of gallium, you'll still have semiconductors for years and years.
Europe doesn't have ready access to rare earths to an extent... but that includes because it hasn't prospected for them, or it is (by current cost) inefficient to extract them when there are cheaper alternatives. But Scandinavia, for instance, has plenty of rare earths. Scotland should, and central Germany. Remember how interested Trump was in Ukraine's rare earths (assuming we stop Russia swallowing it) and Greenland's (assuming the USA doesn't invade it)? There are reckoned to be all sorts of areas of interest. And that's if they are even needed...
... which they may not because there's a good chance that in the long run rare earths mining can be viable pretty much everywhere. Which means it becomes much, much harder for the supply to dry up when a dictator flips out, and much less critical even in the worst case.
Fossil fuels have no future. And they should not have one for climate reasons alone.
The rising oil price is the only good thing of the Iran war.
The rising oil price is the only good thing of the Iran war.
Last edited:
The current energy crisis do prove the environmental argument correct, and every right wing politician who forcefully delayed the transition towards it to protect fossil fuels turned out to be a fool. Had we progressed faster we'd be in less of a mess.
Of course, but battery density isn't good enough, and mini-nuclear reactors aren't a thing yet so modern logistics and trade needs fossil fuels even if I despise almost everyone evolved in the leadership in making it.
The military yes has their own military semiconductor fabs at least in the US, and specialized units, but China is pretty good at learning the lessons of great powers, and superpowers like the USSR and US. They saw that US military shipbuilding became too expensive because the US shipping industry was under invested in, so in the short, and medium term they are forced to rely on fossil fuels which are more economic as of right now then even synthetics.
What Europe needs is to wait out Trump on Greenland, and coup Putin, Lukashenko, and even Serbia's head of state either now or eventually when their young people do it. Or else the US will get Greenland, and China will get Mongolia, and then invade Siberia when nuclear MAD decreases in relevance due to middle powers, and up investing more in air defense since rocket engine tech is becoming more diffused.
Instead your heads of states are arguing about rejecting middle easterners when they should be assimilating them. Who cares if they are islamic, and don't want to eat pork. As long as you maintain your postive, and negative rights, and ensure they serve EU interests that shouldn't matter. Don't follow Trump, Stephen MIller, and Bannon's example.
Last edited:
If fossil fuels were only used where absolutely needed, we would easily be rid of 90% of them. Strange edge cases are no reason to not push the transition as fast as possible.
And yes, most of modern logistics does not need to run on fossil fuels at all. But it would need investmentment and the margins are already paper thin. People will wait until the old stuff breaks or unil the cost of oil is prohibitive.
Last edited: