1 cent is just what they're buying the shares at, not what they're worth.

Yeah, their weird fixation with hydrogen isn't doing them any favours. It's a terrible fuel and the engines are complicated and underperforming.

I agree, they're not terrible—like, it's not a Cybertruck or Hummer EV—but they're not GOOD, either. You look at it and compare it to various other EVs and it's not as fast, doesn't go as far, isn't luxurious. It's just a Toyota and gives you no reason to buy it other than brand loyalty. The RAV4 is insanely popular despite also being (IMO) pretty mediocre. But it's a Toyota and it's reliable as hell and isn't more expensive than everything else in the same category.

Nah, strong disagree.

Teslas sell because they're legitimately good EVs (aside from the Cybertruck, which is good at precisely zero things) and they have first-mover advantage.
Chinese EVs are impressive because they have everything including the kitchen sink in the vehicle and you could buy 4 of them for the price of one used F150.
Hyundais sell because they're interesting and decent vehicles. They don't promise the world, but you get decent value for your money.

The problem with the Toyota/Subaru EVs is that they come from companies that have a very strong value proposition in some way, but the EVs fail to meet those values. Toyotas are supposed to be reliable, good vehicles. They do everything you want, nothing is too flashy, and you know that car will still work in 15 years whether you take care of it or not. Subarus are reliable bad-conditions vehicles that can tackle actual offroading with no modifications and still get you around town comfortably without wasting gas.

The bz4rxzbzbzbzb or whatever (terrible name, a minor but notable problem) just doesn't live up to the Toyota badge, by all accounts. You've got no reason to buy it over a Rav4 or a Prius. It's heavier, worse to drive, worse than the competition, and the range is pretty mediocre. The Solterra is a Toyota with a Subaru badge, and underperforms every other vehicle in the lineup if you buy Subarus for being rugged but practical vehicles.

Toyota has even SAID that they don't really think much about EVs, they think everyone should have a hybrid. So when they built an EV, their hearts weren't really into it. Subaru just wanted something--ANYTHING--to fill the gap in their lineup, and they threw in with Toyota because that seemed like a safe bet. Wrong.

I'm sure the model will get better over time. Toyota likes making money, so they'll figure it out. But these cars don't sell well right now because they're bad.

I suspect he was ignored. Adobe hasn't just made buggier products, they've also just made worse products, where nobody with any design sense or empathy for a user would allow it to be released. They've always been terrible, but their products are nearly intolerable now. They have the best tech and the worst everything else.

Less experience means you don't have to pay that person as much. You don't get the same quality of work out of them—and crucially, you never will. Unless you're using an LLM to help you learn as a specific goal, you won't learn much from prompting it to solve your problems for you.

So basically you have a workforce that never gets better, no matter how many hours they put into the work, so you can continue to pay them poorly FOREVER. They're just prompt-generating meat-sacks. I've argued for years that there's no such thing as 'unskilled' labour; fast-food workers, farm workers, manual laborers all learn skills and are meaningfully better at their jobs as time goes on. But AI workers? It's getting pretty close to being unskilled. If there's any differentiation between the results one person gets vs. another, AI companies will roll those into the model to homogenize the results.

That said, I don't think this future is going to happen. I don't think we can underestimate the value of human work just yet.

Millennials have finally started buying houses and plan on living somewhere long enough to buy a wire-in-the-ground annual cable subscription.
 
Not me though, I'm ad-free streaming till I die at this point.

Yep I also have a kagi subscription too. It's great; I'll never go back to Google search as my primary. Between it and the various ChatGPT flavors of the week I pretty much never use Google products anymore outside of Gmail, and very rarely Google maps.

ChatGPT is a better search product than google, traffic decline to SEO-optimized clickbait websites proves this; they're absolutely 100% going to monetize free tier chatgpt with ads, why would they not? Advertising is 70-90% of Google's stable revenue, they would be insane to leave that money on the table. The question is, given they already have paid-tier products, will they offer ad-free products still? Google always offered their products for free in favor of getting more eyeballs to drive ad revenue, because nobody was willing to pay for a search engine. In this instance, the paid product was offered up front, so hopefully paid products continue to offer an ad-free tier (which I'm happy to pay for, fuck ads).
 
Interestingly, Facebook just started offering a paid tier in... I think the UK? Hopefully that takes off and we see that across other advertising-funded , previously "free only" tier services. We got Youtube Premium during the pandemic and that's been a tremendous value for money.

The whole planet has been wired up with fiber since the late 1990s, even the island of St Helena (google it) has fiber now.

Does mother russia pay by the post or pay by the hour, commarade?

Your overuse of apostrophes is not how I wanted to start my Monday.

Somebody clearly hasn't been paying attention since about April 2025. Things have changed dramatically.

I am seeing the same languages focused on over and over for LLMs: rust, golang, python, c++, bash, typescript, java
 
if these are the languages LLMs are universally best at, that's probably what people will continue to write things in, as LLMs work best at those. Claude and GPT5 are phenomenal at writing rust, python, golang, even terraform

Your statistics are terrible.

Single women raising kids have a higher chance of raising a criminal because there are so many more of them, and women are generally paid less than men, so they have fewer resources to aid raising those kids. Men are less likely to even TRY to get full custody of children, so there's a massive selection bias here—single dads are the ones that actually have the resources AND the desire to raise children.

I wasn't able to find any credible evidence that the problem is specifically with single mothers, though it does seem that single PARENT households are more likely to raise criminal children. But again, this almost certainly has to do with the fact that regardless of gender, one person wasn't meant to raise a child—it takes a village, as the saying goes. People without support will have a hard time doing a sufficient parenting job, through no real fault of their own.

Moreover, in study after study, single women are HAPPIER than married women. Married women are miserable because the men are SO BAD. Women have looked at their options and decided that between living with a couple of cats alone in an apartment or taking care of a douchbag that never does the dishes, the cats win every time, and I DON'T BLAME THEM.
https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fli...

Single women with kids do LESS housework than MARRIED women with kids; men are a net negative in their lives.
https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.psychologytoday.co...