You do get that if that were the story, BTC would be *up* versus the USD right? The fact it is down against the USD by 42% means whatever weakening the dollar experienced, BTC experienced 42% *more* devaluation...

Silver is down pretty significantly, Gold is essentially flat, the stock market is a touch down over the same time period... Of course the USD in general is down a tad compared to Euro for the time period.

I'd say it's annoying as all get out, especially when it obnoxiously suggests something it wants to change that is wrong and refuses to recognize something you *thought* it would slam dunk based on everything to that point..

But in some select circumstances, it can accelerate the dumbest tedious work.

For example, a third party has forced us to significantly rework our codebase to use their 'new' library. The new library is crap, it makes you have to manually manage a whole lot of stuff that was abstracted away in the previous library. In any event, it demands a very tedious reworking of code. To the LLM credit, after I changed a few things by hand I could frequently tab over to the next spot and it does a decent job of spotting similar things and it saves me typing. It's not like a simple rename, the logic has to be reworked, so the old standby of search/replace is non-trivial, so it gets within the reach of LLM. It's still a little puzzling why sometimes it misses stuff, and sometimes it wants to 'correct' something that currently works in a way that would break it. But today it evidently generated half of the changes on that migration project and saved me a bit of hunting and typing. Has to be watched like a hawk, but saving me key presses is... I suppose, worth it. Evidently my statistics say that I average letting it generate about 7% of my contributions, but days like today do let it shine a bit by cutting my annoying chore work in half.

Other fun thing is when I ask it to do a code review, it commonly ends up doing "You seem to be doing X. It would be better to do Y" I say "why not" and accept the change and ask for a review and then it says "It is a bad idea to do Y, you should do X instead".

True, the linear versus track density isn't known, and I've been a bit optimistic on that....

Of course, now they have dual-actuator drives, though currently it's just splitting the lower and upper platters to be served by independent actuators, one could imagine quad-actuator with two more tracking the same platters to double the potential throughput. As well as investing in making the heads capable of concurrent operation.

While my example numbers may be optimistic by pretending the interface technology would be the bottleneck, the general idea is that there are ways we could make a platter based drive have streaming performance that could actually have it reasonable to scrub as this thread talks about or slurp off the data in one go to somewhere else. So if a 140TB makes sense, we might be able to beef up the logistics around it.

I suppose alternative more pessimistic math and assuming you at *least* went to 24Gbps SAS and felt comfortable about saturating it on sequential read, you'd at least be in the ballpark of a 32 TB drive on SATA 6gbps, which the market seems to have accepted the slow full drive access that would mean.

Well they assert 140TB in 14 platters, so 10 TB/platter suggests that it would be about a 3x increase in density over current state of the art

Further, number of platters, since your array of drive heads could read from 14 platters concurrently in a single drive interface, if you could get the drive to read everything to you in the order that is best for it.

So if your number is accurate for current platters, then for the hypothetical indicated, you would at least be in PCIe 5 x4 territory, for streaming performance where you actually could concurrently use drive heads and care about what is easiest for the drive to feed you rather than seeking specific data...

Well let's see...

Today they offer 32TB drives on SATA 6gpbs... If that is 'acceptable' then reading the entire drive takes at least 18 hours or so in theory. If same interface, then you'd be limited to 78 hours...

But wait, there's been talk about spinning platters being upgraded to NVME interfaces. Largely because "why accommodate spinning drives with a separate interface", but if this comes in, and could credibly in that timeframe have NVMe with PCIe 6, then the total drive read time could be reduced to about 90 minutes, in theory.

So in theory, such a drive with a credible storage interface could push this in a more reasonable time period. Historically spinning platters seek performance made the nvme overkill, but streaming performance with that many platters and that density may remedy the 'drive too big' problem. Of course, in the *consumer* market this means that systems would have to start accommodating that sort of connectivity... Of course, in the timeframe perhaps the drives would just use USB to connect, and could credibly connect at 120Gbps, which would mean about 180 minutes of time to read the full time...

In short, it's time to move to PCIe connectivity to tame these capacities...

Well, not all, but it's at least understandable to charge to keep that car's SIM in good standing. However a number of vendors have cellular connectivity and don't charge for it. They generally have some upsell, but they keep the basic connectivity either as a loss-leader or aid in service.

Well, the ThinkPad line has pretty much sustained the quality from IBM days, yes the non-Thinkpad stuff is frequently junk, but then again before IBM sold it off the desktops were not-so-affectionately nicknamed Craptiva, so IBM was no stranger to slumming it to try to get share, but Lenovo was more aggressive about it. So yes, the Lenovo at the local best buy is probably crap, but the ThinkPad line is pretty much intact. At least insofar as any of the brands are intact, keyboards across the board have opted to be a little worse for the sake of looking more appealing and accommodating thinner form factors.

Similarly, the biggest security controversy were on the non-Thinkpad lines. The 'Superfish' fiasco that every keeps citing was actually a US company using an Israeli SSL hijacker, so Lenovo screwed up by bundling the wrong crapware, which is terrible, but far from unique given the penchant for vendors to take all sorts of dubious comers. The good news being after Superfish, I think the whole industry was a bit more careful about the crapware they bundle.

Well, it depends...

Whether or not LLM does eat the lunch of some of those vendors, merely the activity of spinning up efforts to prepare and evaluate a migration is a threat of disruption. A lot of these software companies lean on the lockin and provide crappy service but retain customers by sheer reluctance to migrate.

If the customer base is stirred up enough to be ready for a migration, overcoming the lock-in, they may land in another place, either LLM works as promised or it doesn't but competition can be entertained thanks to all the effort to be ready for LLM.

It's just a gag about the usual sequence of events from Google on a project, and maybe a South Park reference...

I think the challenge was that publishers saw Gamecube as a platform from a vendor that wasn't historically the easiest to work with business-wise, and with game sizes limited to 1.5GB whereas Xbox and PS2 did the full 8.5GB disk size. Of course Sony enjoyed coming off of Playstation being *the* platform (N64 cartridges severely limited them, Saturn made some bad bets technology wise), so a Playstation 2 that was *backwards compatible* was a slam dunk.

Xbox didn't do that well either, Sony was largely still in a class by itself that generation.

Yes, and there's plenty of stories about companies that *did* spend crazy amounts to expand capacity to meet demand only for the fad to die down before that spend could even matter, and then they spend all that for nothing.

When a company is faced with a surprise demand surge, they are carefully considering the likelihood of the surge subsiding before they can even do anything.

I hear OS/2 is pretty good...

Yeah, I was inclined to dig the post-scarcity angle, but Manna just rubbed me the wrong way.

I think in part because the author wanted to have a single character experience both halves of the coin, which means necessarily it has to be a world where not everyone gets to participate in the socialist approach, but somehow the protagonist could. So the contortions he did fell back on capitalistic mechanisms. To his credit, to make up for it, there was an implication that as the socialist approach scaled up, it would eventually cover everyone, but for the duration of the story I just got hung up on how one might consider the rich people who confine the 'unworthy' to not leave their little neighborhoods to how the new Australians confine the unworthy to live in their foreign countries until which point they were willing to accept them, and at that point still unclear what the criteria would be for being allowed in for priority access once they could handle all their candidates that bought their way.

I get the general concept, but just disheartening for a key cited work for illustrating how it 'could' be done ultimately undermines itself. And of course the detail that government reserved the right to disconnect mind from body ostensibly for crime prevention and the associated implied constant government monitoring, which seemed a totally unnecessary and dystopian angle to include with that much sincerity.

Per capita matters in terms of realistic expectations.

For example, you couldn't possibly expect Finland to put out 4.5 million annually, given they only have 5.5 million people.

Yes, if you are outnumbered, there's real impact. But if per capita numbers match, there wouldn't be much you could *expect* that could be done to reasonably rectify without a general explosion in the broader population to draw from.