I had no idea hard disks came ribbed for her pleasure.

deleted by creator

So you will believe a rumour based on nothing

Says Tesla. You’re a fool if someone saying “nuh uh!” is good enough for you. Especially when its the reputation of the WSJ vs. the reputation of Tesla.

won’t believe the board of directors denying said rumour unless they sue?

Tell me you know absolute dick-all about corporations, without telling me you know dick-all about corporations.

I’ll give you a hint: what do you think would happen to the stock price of literally any company if the board confirmed they were ousting the CEO before the CEO was out? My dude, your native Australia has a better chance of eliminating every single venomous critter on that island than any corporate board admitting that. And that goes double for the single most overvalued stock on the planet, whose price is driven solely by the hype man’s promises.

So yes. If and when Tesla sues the WSJ, and wins that case, then I’ll believe they were right. Until then, I’m going to treat them like the lying Nazi-enabling shit car company they are.

When Tesla wins a civil suit about this story, then I’ll believe they’re not lying.

This sums it up:

AI can’t tell you what’s true or not, so it can’t tell you when you’re wrong.

It can literally resurrect 10 year old computers.

I’ve got a 14-year-old Toshiba that I used in college that runs a weird variant of Ubuntu called Kumander (it’s designed specifically to look and feel like Windows 7, which I think is properly nostalgic for the hardware). As long as you don’t expect the battery to last more than an hour (which about par for the course for a laptop from then) it’s perfectly serviceable as a SOHO-type machine.

Also it can double as a self-defense weapon cause it weighs like 10 lbs.

This is exactly how YouTube’s DMCA takedown system works, and how media companies have been abusing it since it’s inception. Someone claims copyright on your video, and Google immediately takes it down. You then can contest the claim and Youtube will put it back up. But the claimant can contest your contest, and Google will then tell you that you can’t have it up and have to settle in court with the claimant. Oh, and you get a strike to boot.

The whole process is automated, because there’s so much content now it’s impractical for every single takedown request to be addressed by a human. And because there is no punishment for bad-faith takedown requests, there is no incentive for the claimants to ensure their IP is really being infringed.

Google Maps

https://wego.here.com/

Edit: one interesting thing about their mobile app is when you use the GPS for directions, it changes where the audio comes from depending on what your next direction is. If your next is “turn left” then the instructions come from your left-side car audio.

I didn’t sound like a centralized system from the article. More like they want a third party like Verisign or something.

It’s going to be both. Bluesky will verify users, but they’re also going to have other authorized verification entities.

From what I’ve seen, there will be two distinct types of blue check- users verified by Bluesky will have one mark, and users verified by a trusted authority will have a different mark.

Now who will those third-party verifiers be, and how will they be selected, hasn’t been announced yet.

Right now, venture capital investments - same as all tech starts out.

How it’ll monetize to become self-sufficient remains to be seen.

It would absolutely not surprise me if Teslas calculate miles driven via GPS instead of tire rotation or some other mechanical means.

It’s the kind of “reinventing the wheel, only worse and more expensive” that Musk would do.

Given his track record with real rockets and real rocket scientists, I would consider it a win for him to make it off the launchpad and back in one piece. 😂

No, he cares for Twitter.

SpaceX lets him pretend he’s some great tech genius, but Twitter is what gives him the validation he craves. All the pro-Elon bots and stans there who fellate him feed his narcissistic desire to be loved.

That’s why he “sold” Twitter to xAI. So if Tesla does tank hard enough and he gets margin called, he can’t be forced to sell Twitter to cover it.

It’s been a minute, but off the top of my head:

• The story was ass.
• Not enough content for a “live service” game.
• Enemy levels scaled heavily with your gear level, so better gear didn’t make you feel any more powerful.
• The stats system for the gear was trash. Like, equipping one piece of high level gear and then keeping your starting gear for everything else was legitimately better than trying to get BiS for all of your gear.
• Gear had randomly generated buffs, and those might buff other gear. But sometimes it would you would get a drop for something your class could equip (not every class could use every weapon, for example) but with buffs to a weapon your class couldn’t use.
• For a game that was essentially “be Iron Man” they included an overheat mechanic so you couldn’t just fly wherever you wanted.

Anthem was a really great idea for a game that had an absolutely terrible execution.

Tesla could literally never sell another car again, and it wouldn’t matter as long as people continue to buy the stock.

It’s been wildly over priced for a very long time, so clearly the people who are keeping it afloat aren’t interested in whether the company is actually profitable or not.

This, exactly.

The whole point of CVE is to make sure everyone is on the same page regarding exploits. That necessitates a single point of truth for the whole operation.

Well this is just flat out wrong.

The fact that people started appending “Reddit” to their search terms to find answers to what they wanted to know would probably be a gigantic indicator that Google’s results without it were less than helpful.

A useful search engine returns the most relevant result the user wants as fast as possible. An advertising company wants its users to look at as many ads as they can for as long as they’ll tolerate them. Thus it’s apparent the goals of Google (the search engine) are diametrically opposed to the goals of Alphabet (the advertising company).

So yes, it’s in the best interest of Google’s bottom line to figure out how many ads they can show you (read: before you stop using Google altogether) until they show what might be relevant to you.

They said “useful,” they didn’t say “relevant.”

In this case, “useful” means “the most results we can get paid to show you without you going to a different website.”

Which is somehow still less ridiculous than tariffs on penguins.