Every industry has an accessibility crisis. Lazy MBAs don’t want to sell products that appeal to everyone if they can sell products that only appeal to rich people with less effort.

What is the Pope is a Bears fan?

The key thing for elections is that all counts ought to be auditable and verifiable. It doesn’t matter whether the count is done by humans or electronically. Enough information from each individual vote must be preserved so that counts can be verified, during the legal window for races to be confirmed.

I am old enough that when I first started voting, we used lever machines. You pushed a lever for your choice in each race, then you pushed a big lever, which “recorded” your choice and resets all levers for the next person. But, it recorded your choice on manual dials that showed the vote total. Sometimes, the dial has issues rolling over from “9” to “10”, or “9999” to “10000”. If your vote got swallowed by the mechanical dial, it’s gone! There was no remedy. At the end of the election, the poll workers reported the counts off the dials. If they needed a recount, they looked at the dials and said “Yup, that’s the count”.

Today, I vote on a paper ballot, which gets fed into a machine. I can see right away if my vote is accepted – if it is not, I can get a new ballot and try again. All those paper ballots are retained so if there is a recount, they can either be run again or physically inspected by hand. It is much better tha it used to be.

The videos are never associated with a user’s identity and are deleted after the verification process. Audio is never recorded.

I actually believe them. It’s gonna start out this way. But in a year or two, they’ll quietly slip in a provision stating they will hold on to the images for a short time for security purposes, then they will say that they will associate your image with your identity to make it more secure, then Google’s AI will know everything about everyone (and sell the info to the highest bidder)

Lol, good one, who actually thinks AI companies are profitable?

Exactly. My terminology might not be correct, but my point is that their books can be perfectly balanced, and they can also be losing a shit-ton of money, as long as investors keep shoveling money in.

I’m not an accountant, but you can certainly balance books while showing a loss. Double-entry bookkeeping simply means that every transaction has two parts, and “balancing” simply means that all the transactions cancel out properly.

I joke with my accountant friends that their entire job is counting to zero.

That’s quite easy, the books are balanced, there are just more debits than credits. “Balancing the books” doesn’t mean that the net result is zero, it means that all the money going in and going out is accounted for.

OpenAI can keep bleeding money as long as there are fools willing to fund it in exchange for the illusion of future profits.

In German, wouldn’t that all be one word?

They didn’t reject adding SpaceX, they simply said they would not change the rules to add it early, like the other indexes are. Those rules include a minimum time listed as a public company, a certain percentage of shares being floated to the public, and some profitability. I doubt SpaceX ever gets there.

Some of those other AI companies might make it through the gauntlet, though, and be listed eventually.

Aren’t they losing a ton of money, though?

Note = loan in this context. OP is saying he doesn’t want the burden of a monthly payment on a new car, and would rather buy a cheaper car that he doesn’t need to borrow for. (Although these are becoming harder to find, at least in the US…)

For the same reason why they let so much water evaporate. They could convert some of that heat back into electricity, just like they could run closed-loop cooking systems, but it would cost more money than it would save. There’s no financial incentive to do so…

… Until regulators start insisting! These datacenter folks have gobs of money, we shouldn’t be shy about requiring them to not ruin the local environment.

It would be best to do it on a national level, otherwise these folks will just shift the development to someplace without the regulations.

Why are people acting surprised? This is exactly what DOGE intended to do.

How many AI datacenters will it take to boil the ocean?

It’s effective in terms of cranking out software. I’m talking about skilled senior engineers managing this directly. They know what they’re about. But at what cost?

Those senior engineers became skilled by starting out as entry-level engineers who didn’t know all that stuff, but learned from the senior engineers before them (and by writing a lot of bugs that hopefully got caught by code reviews.) Now, companies are using AI as an excuse not to hire entry-level people.

15 years from now, we will find there are no mid-level people to promote, because they never got their entry-level job and are now waiting tables.

Total guess, but probably $100-150/mo or so to rent 1U (and redundant power), and probably an installation charge (and a charge every time they need to touch the hardware for any reason). There may be extra charges for the uplink.

Unless you have a need for that specific hardware to be there, it would probably be cheaper (and more maintainable) to go rent a virtual server somewhere.

I bet those politicians are getting some sweet bribes gratuitues

I won’t even get contact lenses, I ain’t letting them putting a chip in my brain.

Those datacenters are already built, though, and consume a fraction of the power of the new sloppified AI stuff. You can get space in one right now, if you want