jj4211

Yeah, but can they handle the collapse of going back to the company before the AI boom? They've increased in market cap 5000%, attracted a lot of stakeholders that never would have bothered with nVidia if not for the LLM boom. If LLM pops, then will nVidia survive with their new set of stakeholders that didn't sign up for a 'mere graphics company'?

They've reshaped their entire product strategy to be LLM focused. Who knows what the demand is for their current products without the LLM bump. Discrete GPUs were becoming increasingly niche since 'good enough' integrated GPUs kind of were denting their market.

They could survive a pop, but they may not have the right backers to do so anymore...

Nah, they already converted all their business clients to recurring revenue and are, relatively, not very exposed to the LLM thing. Sure they will have overspent a bit on datacenters and nVidia gear, but they continue to basically have most of global business solidly giving them money continuously to keep Office and Azure.

In terms of longer term tech companies that could be under existential threat, I'd put Supermicro in there. They are a long term fixture in the market that was generally pretty modest and had a bit of a boost from the hyperscalers as 'cloud' took off, but frankly a lot of industry folks were not sure exactly how Supermicro was getting the business results they reported while doing the things they were doing. Then AI bubble pulled them up hard and was a double edged sword as the extra scrutiny seemingly revealed the answer was dubious accounting all along. The finding would have been enough to just destroy their company, except they were 'in' on AI enough to be buoyed above the catastrophe.

A longer stretch, but nVidia might have some struggles. The AI boom has driven their market cap about 5000%. They've largely redefined most of their company to be LLM centric, with other use cases left having to make the most of whatever they do for LLM. How will their stakeholders react to a huge drop from the most important company on earth to a respectable but modest vendor of stuff for graphics? How strong is the appetite for GPU when the visual results aren't really that much more striking than they were 3 generations of hardware back?

Broadly speaking, I'd say simulation theory is pretty much more akin to religion than science, since it's not really testable. We can draw analogies based on what we see in our own works, but ultimately it's not really evidence based, just 'hey, it's funny that things look like simulation artifacts...'

There's a couple of ways one may consider it distinct from a typical theology:

• Generally theology fixates on a "divine" being or beings as superior entities that we may appeal to or somehow guess what they want of us and be rewarded for guessing correctly. Simulation theory would have the higher order beings likely being less elevated in status.
• One could consider the possibility as shaping our behavior to the extent we come anywhere close to making a lower order universe. Theology doesn't generally present the possibility that we could serve that role relative to another.

But that sounds like disproving a scenario no one claimed to be the case: that everything we perceive is as substantial as we think it is and can be simulated at full scale in real time by our own universe.

Part of the whole reason people think of simulation theory as worth bothering to contemplate is because they find quantum physics and relativity to be unsatisyingly "weird". They like to think of how things break down at relativistic velocities and quantum scale as the sorts of ways a simulation would be limited if we tried, so they like to imagine a higher order universe that doesn't have those pesky "weird" behaviors and we are only stuck with those due to simulation limits within this hypothetical higher order universe.

Nothing about it is practical, but a lot of these science themed "why" exercises aren't themselves practical or sciency.

Though passkeys are now commonly shared across devices. That was one of the changes they made. For example, chrome will gladly do all the passkey management in the Google password manager. Under Linux at least there's isn't even a whiff of trying to integrate with a hardware security device. First pass they demanded either a USB device or Bluetooth connection to a phone doing it credibly, or windows hello under windows, but now they decided to open it up.

If only they had made this research before they made the Abyss, that could have been a more interesting concept..

Technically the truth, but an argument can be made that 2FA was mostly more secure by virtue of how bad password security is, and selling a switch to passkey as a convenience is a big security win.

Also with passkey, you'll be commonly be forced to do some sort of device unlock making it generally the "thing you have" require either "thing you are" or "thing you know" so it becomes effectively 2fa.

If a service were going to passkeys for sake of law enforcement or works be so much easier for them to just comply with bypassing auth to access the user data altogether. Passkey implementations originally only supported very credible offline mechanisms and only relaxed those requirements when it became clear the vast majority of people couldn't handle replacing their devices with passkeys.

For screen lock for the common person it was either that or nothing at all. So demanding a PIN only worked because most of the time the user didn't have to deal with it owing to touching a fingerprint or face unlock.

People hate passwords and mitigate that aggravation by giving random Internet forum the same password as their bank account. I wouldn't want to take user passwords because I know I have a much higher risk of a compromise somehow leading to compromise of actually important accounts elsewhere.

Butt breathing, third form....

When will they cover this in Demon Slayer?

Yeah, this is one of those terrible ideas even if you thought that, in theory, you were onboard with 'anti-DEI'.

Out of the blue the wrong person gets randomly pissed at you and invokes the highly subjective clause and suddenly you owe them $1.5M...

With many bearaucracies there's plenty of practically valueless work going on.

Because some executive wants to brag about having over a hundred people under them. Because some proceas requires a sort of document be created that hasn't been used in decades but no one has the time to validate what does or does not matter anymore. Because of a lot of little nonsense reasons where the path of least resistance is to keep plugging away. Because if you are 99 percent sure something is a waste of time and you optimize it, there's a 1% chance you'll catch hell for a mistake and almost no chance you get great recognition for the efficiency boost if it pans out.

Yes. Musk's net worth including his stock is a bit shy of 500 billion, and Tesla market cap is about 1500 billion. His net worth includes all his assets that he could possibly leverage.