The danger with fencing things off is in how you determine what is fenced off and what isn't. I'm not convinced it's possible to do that without creating something that gets harnessed for censorship or propaganda based on who has the bigger end of the political/economic stick at that moment.
I had an AI class in college 30 years ago that centered on the medical field. It was pretty exciting but never went anywhere. Patient gives symptoms, softwares asks questions… seemed so straightforward. Quite strange to me that, 3 decades later, not much has changed on that front, aside for my realization that good doctors are few and far between IRL.
Congrats to everyone involved for greasing up the online racist machine for a few more weeks or months. They’ve been gaining ground, and power, by painting America as a country being overrun by Latinos. Now they have the Super Bowl halftime show as ‘proof’.
If only the NFL had chosen a pop star who sings in English for the halftime show, then we'd all live in harmony and all the people "concerned" about the country being overrun by Latinos would relax and embrace multiculturalism. /s
A large AWS‑type hyperscale site in Europe, when fully built out at around 100 MW, would correspond to on the order of 100,000 European households’ annual electricity use.
In practice, European strategies or regional plans that cite “100,000 homes” usually frame this as something to be achieved over roughly a decade.
AWS says it can develop and build a data center itself in about two years, but in Europe the limiting factor is often the grid connection, which can take up to seven years in some markets.
Social media may have been the biggest disappointment and missed opportunity of the internet era. It’s a literal dumpster fire. People do not get what they want from it. Clearly, the market is not dictated by the customer.
I'm a bit confused. What's the alternative outcome? We're talking about humans here, most of which have an IQ below 100! For any social thing, more humans literally means more dumb. The only way around it is silos/migration, which is exactly how it was handled in the early internet, and why this place is reasonable.
Or, is that what was missed? Better silos, with some sort of semi non-community enforcement for the quality of interaction/comment?
Once upon a time, people saw computers (then the Internet) as a way of lifting people up rather than pushing people down. They saw it as a way of equalizing people's access to knowledge, rather than subjecting them to a fire hose of information. They believed that it would encourage discourse to bring people together, rather than dividing people along ideological lines.
People are being given what they flock to. Again, what's the alternative outcome? What does the implementation look like to you? How is the prevention of dopamine driven content generation and willing consumption enforced? How do you keep conversations meaningful, and content "fulfilling" when that's not what most, what we used to call "normies", actually want?
Musk is working hard to be the type of Bond villain that has to hide on his own private island as every government of the world wants him in jail. Just needs to add lasers to his satellites then hold the world hostage!
reply