Agreed. It's not the same, but similar issues remain. Investors, both from the stock market and direct, are the ones providing the money. So long as companies keep buying the products, everything is fine.

What has to happen is AI, in all its forms, needs to get its act together. While the market can stay irrational longer than you or I, you, as the company, need to show something for the billions being sent your way. Personally, I believe there will be advances from all this computing power. However, it's going to take time to sift the chaff from the wheat. Once someone, or someones, finds the right combination of software and hardware, that's when it will get interesting. How long that will take is the question and whether investors are willing to keep handing over their money.

The difference is these companies aren't necessarily going into debt to keep running. They just keep going back to investors who hand over their money.

Also, those other companies in the 90s used the debt to purchase and install physcal equipment needed for the upcoming expansion. That they sabotaged themselves with high prices and slow rollouts is the main reason for their failure.

None of the woo "hurt him in terms of accelerating cancer". The problem is that he did that instead of actual treatment, and let a highly treatable cancer turn into a nearly-untreatable one.

When you're in a forest, things are darker than in the open. You would need to stand out.

That and the colorful butterflies either go somewhere else or die off because humans are cutting down their habitat.

And yet, I know French workers that were able to bootstrap their own businesses in part thanks to the generous severance packages they got from their former employers.

When you mentioned "third partner" who cashed out early, I thought for a minute you were going to be talking about Ronald Wayne - what a life of bad decisions he made ;)

For those not familiar:

He got 10% of the original Apple stock (drew the first Apple Logo, made the partnership documents, wrote the Apple I manual, etc).
Twelve days later, he sold it for $800.
Okay, but he could still try to claim rights in court... nah, a year later he signed a contract with the company to forfeit any potential future claims against the company for $1500.
Okay, well, it's not like he had an opportunity to rethink... nah, Jobs and Wozniak spent two years trying to get him back, to no avail.
Okay, but he still had, like memorabilia he could hawk from the early days, like his signed contract. Nah, he sold that for $500 in 2016.
And that contract went on later to be sold for $1,6 million.
Okay, well, I'm sure he went on to do great things... nah, he ended up running a tiny postage stamp shop.
Which he ended up having to move into his Florida home because of repeated break-ins.
Which he then had to sell after an inside-job heist bankrupted him.

Jobs committed suicide-by-woo. He didn't "turn away from traditional therapy because it can't keep up with rapidly advancing metastasis", he turned away from treatment for a perfectly treatable form of cancer for nine months to try things like a vegan diet, acupuncture and herbal remedies, and that killed him.

Steve Jobs had islet cell neuroendocrine tumor. It's much less aggressive than normal pancreatic adenocarcinoma. The five-year survival rate is 95% with surgical intervention. Jobs was specifically told that he had one of the 5% of pancreatic cancers "that can be cured", and there was no evidence at the time of his diagnosis that it had spread. Jobs instead turned to woo. Eight months later, there was signs on CT scans that his cancer had grown and possibly spread, and then he finally underwent surgery, it was confirmed that there were now secondary tumors on his liver. His odds of a five-year survival at this point were now 23%. And he did not roll that 23%.

Jobs himself regretted his decision to delay conventional medical intervention.

I did some proof of concept tests with both Pointer Lock and PointerEvents, but both failed because you don't get *any* data if you're not moving the mouse, and only get (heavily rounded) datapoints when you do move the mouse. You'd need raw access to data coming from the mouse, before even the mouse driver, to do what they did.

You *might* be able to pull off a statistical attack, collecting noise in the fluctuations of movement positions and timing in the data you receive when the mouse *is* moving. But I can't see how that could possibly have the fidelity to recover audio, except for *maybe* really deep bass. And again, it'd only apply for when the mouse is actually moving.

Neat attack, but not really practical in the browser.

Why stop there? Why not legalize all grifting.M/EM>
BR? Have you not seen who is in the White House? He's the biggest grifter we have. He routinely pardons people convicted of financial crimes as well.

They've been pushing this narrative that media can't be trusted. This then allows them to shape stories to fit their own right-wing agenda. Witness for the past 5 years all the whining about a "stolen" election. Almost every day for Biden's term that fake story was pushed out, mainly by their stooge Trump, but definitely put out there on other sites and roundly repeated by the dullard MAGA crowd.

Never mind that the Fox tabloid jumped wholeheartedly on this bandwagon and got bitchslapped for almost $800 million for pusing the lie, or that several attorneys were either suspended from pracitce, criminally charged, or disbarred for repeating the lie in court. Nope, the election was stolen and the media is lying because . . . reasons.

Then of course there are the calls of "FAKE!" every time the truth is put out. Such as when repeating the decaying coleslaw words of dear leader Trump. Repeat his own words and you're called out for being "fake news".

What makes this story so hilarious is that the same people who claim to have low to no trust in media are the first ones to go rushing to the same media to see who the new white guy is shotting up a church or school. They want to see if their biased perceptions are true and when the story doesn't match what they think, they claim the story is false because . . . reasons.

Even more hilarious is when people claim they no longer listen to the media but instead get their news from various social media sites. Where do they think the people posting screenshots are getting their information from?

Turmp is right. Smart people don't like him because he caters to the poorly educated (a group he says he loves) who will lap up any bs he or Project 2025 or the late Charlie Kirk spit out. Because instead of looking at reality, they want to believe there is some vast conspiracy by news media to lie to them, to withhold the truth. Except, when the truth is out there, these same people claim it's all lies. They can't have it both ways (they can, but it shows their stupidity). Either you have to accept these people are doing their jobs reporting on corruption, reporting on who's doing what underhanded thing, who's committing genocide, or you don't. You don't get to pick and choose like all the Senators and Representatives who claim the election was stolen, except for their election.

Actually, I retract my earlier statement. I had read something about Tinker earlier today on another site, but crossreferencing, it appears to have been wrong.

This product is a 'me too' since there's already tools to help you fine tune various Big Player models.

That's not what this is. This is a tool for creating foundation models.

Would you prefer the word "proprietary"? Because AFAIK that's all he means by that.

My sympathies for your lose.

[Eye twitch] [Eye twitch]

"Jane Goodall, Famed Primatologist "

Also, famed primate.