jj4211

I saw precisely this, that the AI are pretty terrible at generating switch configuration, which surprised me as I thought that would have gone pretty well.

And sure, people might guess and some people guess with similar confidence, but I can't stand those folks already (extends to AI).

But the plausible looking config with supreme confidence already convinced the non technical management that we should rely heavily upon it.

I hate doing a lot of code review all at once, and AI vomits a lot of code. Hopefully the mistake is obviously big and up front, but all too often the mistake dwells in the details that I would likely be too tired to notice after a lot of plausible code.

With human code to review at least the volume is generally workable and when it's wrong, it tends to be more obviously wrong. A human that takes care of very detailed facets with care inspires trust in their thoroughness, but codegen looks that way without the thorough consideration.

I find it anti addictive. Work is pretty aggressive (but now not too aggressive thanks to cost, but still a bit aggressive). So everyone is expected to show some utilization or be shunned. For the first time, I find myself thinking it might be nice to get out of this entire industry, if only I could afford to

Anyway, I managed to consume what was my monthly quota in a week and was quite happy that I could credibly ignore AI for the next three weeks.

Then disappointed as an administrator quintupled my quota the next day.

Though nothing is nearly as annoying as everyone else's use is AI. I hate using it, and it's just even worse dealing with the consequences of other people using it.

Note on shorts they removed the thumbs down button shortly after AI slop became a huge thing in shorts.

That seems to indicate a certain direction to me.

Private companies are allowed to decline to host at their will. USA nor EU mandate that a platform must host content they don't want to.

In practice, it's possible that China companies operating outside of China won't implement the same restrictions that they do within China. Whatever the Chinese government thinks the importance of maintaining censorship within the borders, it seems probable that the government and companies will be more pragmatic about realities in other nations.

On purpose? Not much.

The bigger concern would be when a criticism of China would be an important facet of a topic that would be covered, and omitting that would detract from the accuracy and comprehensiveness of the content.

Imagine if video hosting platforms couldn't call out any of the stuff Trump does as wrong or incompetent. So so many topics would have to be ignored entirely to avoid offending the administration. Currently China criticism is a little less critical in the moment by comparison, but things shift over time.

Cool, the word "Queen" is generic so I should be able to start a band named that, no problem.

Turns out that 'generic term' is contextual, and in fact many generic terms are trademark protected especially in the musical group area.

Yes, and it's an excellent example that Apple the record label trademark was valid yet Apple the computer company could use it in a separate context, but had to change when they did iTunes.

Here it's squarely in the same market. The cited example of customer confusion about a concert event works strongly in their favor.

This seems to be a bit mixed in reporting.

Seems like it depends on what the outlet wants to spin.

One article cited the trademark for recorded music and merchandise in 2022, but vaguely said there was a separate trademark for performance, but that was left unspecified. That article seemed to want to induce a narrative of opportunistic trademark, but even then that's perhaps a bit of a stretch as they wouldn't have known it would have gone down as a media sensation that soon, though it had been announced as a thing.

However, another article explained that the performance trademark was registered in 2014. That is pretty unambiguously way before Netflix would have even had it as a thought.

Their case is shit, its frankly a miracle they were even able to trademark “Demon Hunters” because it’s so generic. I see this going nowhere.

How many band names would not be considered generic independent of context? The Cure is trademarked, R.E.M. is trademarked, Queen is trademarked... Famously Apple computers ran up against Apple records trademark and it was deemed both ok for Apple Computer to continue without declaring it genericized, just that they were trademark in their respective markets. Until iTunes, then Apple had to change the arrangement.

For American consumer, sure.

But there may be price relief as the ultra rich datacenters insist they need to be able to source that Chinese memory and get some special exemptions, probably after a few million in bribes to Trump. That might free up some supply.

There is some decent Chinese stuff. Sometimes it's hard to know though with the flood of crap. For example Anker seems consistently decent, but anything that sounds like Qihoon or Xiyomao or whatever random brand word they pop into existence on the other hand...

Note that the negative impact of these facilities are, by designed, concentrated on the communities that get stuck with them. The overall percentage has to be considered in the context of them focusing that impact into relatively small, super dense footprints.

Also, the percentage is higher than 1%, and in the US is about 5%. This reflects the current situation that the AI companies lament is just too constrained on them, with ambitions of getting to 20% if circumstances allow them to build up the way they want. So it's already somewhat significant, especially with the way it gets concentrated, and further they want to bump it up at least four fold beyond what they've managed to do so far.

In anticipation of that, energy strategies that planned to be more tame and grow by renewables got pushed aside in favor of more natural gas, and especially portable power generation which tends to be more polluting.