The SNES launched at $472 USD, adjusted for inflation. It also did not include a second controller. The Nintendo Switch 2 costs $449 USD, not $525. I'm not sure where your street price comes from, as the console is currently in stock for MSRP at all major Canadian retailers, and in the US, it's available for immediate shipping at MSRP from Nintendo's own website, so there's no reason that anybody would ever pay more than MSRP.

It's true that the SNES included a pack-in game for that price, and the Switch 2 price with a pack-in game is $499, which is a bit more expensive. But it's not that far off.

On one hand you're correct that Cheeto Mussolini's actions are disruptive. On the other, we have all so far been notified about those actions. Corporations aren't required to update us internally as they go, only during periodic required filings.

Name a time Microsoft has not been terrible.

That is not based on the sender.

Also, do you have any citation showing that link is not associated with more spam?

Doing something that actually makes sense instead of just effectively committing arson? They must be desperate to look like they are helping

You think plastics are going to affect you less when they have more surface area and are inside your body? Fuck me running.

FFS.

Ok, I suppose it depends on the definition of malice, but negligence can be a criminal act. You don't need to intend to actually cause harm, but if you knowingly act in a way that may cause harm, that's considered intent. Not internet :)

Specifically for libel sure, but I was using that as one of many examples where harmful speech is widely considered to be something that exists. I don't mean to say that specifically these are criminal libel machines.

My point is twofold: harmful speech exists and there are many examples of where it's codified in law even in the US with the first amendment. Secondly, intent is less than active malice, sound something you know may cause harm, the defence of "I didn't mean to" doesn't hold up.

So ok mostly I don't hold with the argument that there is no such thing as harmful speech. It's a very extreme position held by some people, but the law disagrees. Now different types have different bars in different jurisdictions. Solicitation of a crime for example is one where the bar for harm/intent is pretty low. Kind of implied by the crime part.

Safe harbour provisions shield the hoster from the actions of the people who make the material that's hosted. However with LLM output, they are the person making the material to be hosted so I don't see how the provisions apply.

Indeed. somebody is manning the drive-thru during all business hours, regardless of how often they switch off. Eliminate those work hours, you eliminate that payroll.

Maybe in East Bumfuck Egypt. I could take you to half a dozen places with a mile of where I'm sitting where the drive-thru is a full time job.

And if humans are doing less work, they are costing less. Period. To believe otherwise is to disconnect from reality.

You bet your life savings on a franchise over that. I'll pass.

Franchises tend to vary a lot by owner. McDonald's exerts a lot of control over practices in each location, but most other chains don't.

I agree that Taco Bell's kiosk system isn't all that well designed.

"Stolen" clearly indicates you are just repeating the MSM cover lies to cover up their "all the hallmarks of Russian Disinformation".

It was NOT stolen, it was ABANDONED by Mr Biden (the crack addict) at a repair shop.

Our local Taco Bell isn't using this, so I can't really speak on accuracy there, but Bojangles is using an AI order taker and while I haven't intentionally tried to trip it up, I will say that as a customer just ordering, its been very, very accurate. Probably MORE accurate than a human order taker for me as it doesn't get complacent or ignore things if its tired and what not.

A lot of times though even at other places I've started ordering through the app, even if I'm already in the drive thru line, I'll pull out my phone and place the order and just tell them I'm picking up a mobile order when I get to the speaker. For this type of monotonous task humans are just very error-prone.

I'm not sure Tesla is likely to get it done. Maybe, maybe not. In theory it's definitely possible for a camera-only system to be as safe as a human driver, but that's not enough. It has to be safer than a human driver before we'll accept it, and I don't know if Tesla can get there -- and they obviously haven't reached the lower bar yet.

Note that I own a Tesla Model S and use FSD (supervised) all the time. It's marvelous. I especially love it for long road trips because it's basically flawless at freeway driving and I find that I feel much less tired after a long day with it. I also use it around town where it's good enough to make getting places much more pleasant.

I expect that the system they're using in the so-called "robotaxis" is a little better than the FSD in my car, but from the videos and user reports, it's not that much better. Will they get all the way? It's really not clear. I think they have a good chance, but it's also entirely possible that they'll fail, and after a few more years of trying finally admit they need to go back to the drawing board.

Equity that may become worth millions. Joining a startup is a bet on massive, life-changing future rewards. Established companies can't offer that.

FWIW, I'm a Google high-performer leaving Google in two weeks (after 14 years), for a startup :D