Yet, so far there are no measurable impacts. See also recent statements by NVIDIA CEO. And no, companies most certainly do not hire to "meet demand" they hire to make as much money as possible.

The Economist doesn't think LLMs have affected (un)employment yet (https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.economist.com%2Ffinance-and-economics%2F2025%2F05%2F26%2Fwhy-ai-hasnt-taken-your-job). So there's that. Also, the idea that with more productive employees the company can hire more employees that will generate even more revenue. This may not happen in all cases, as greedy bosses may want to cling to the little extra profits they can wring by firing more people. But overall there's no real reason that the same process that has played out over the last few centuries with every new technology that put some people out of work but employed more on balance will not apply.

Thinking of recent technology advances that have led to increased productivity, telephone, fax, e-mail, internet and later Google etc, it's hard to imagine how these advances haven't been nearly equally available and taken advantage of worldwide. What real difference does it make where they originate? AI seems increasingly becoming a commodity that has been replicated already many times. Why would the world not benefit from this (nearly) equally? Of course the US benefits more by having more money flow in and a richer tech sector, but the benefits of the Google search are by no means limited to America. Kind of the nature of tech jumps is that they're shared. Other than military, security stuff etc but he's not talking about that I assume.

The fact that this doom has not yet materialized due to past technological advances does not mean it will not happen ever in the future. To some extent past changes in tech were slow enough for advanced societies to eventually work the changes into the labor markets. Companies found new uses for newly freed labor, and economies continued growing. But should a change that in prior centuries that unfolded over decades happen, say, in just a few years, who knows how well we will be able to adapt? European countries cope well with higher unemployment, but I'm not sure I'd like to live in a United States that suddenly has 20% unemployment. It's hard to imagine the chaos that might bring.

I assume you're saying this not entirely seriously. Because if you are, implying that so much damage would result from one company pulling out of a market is certainly a scary scenario. I hope that we never depend on one company so much, and if it ever comes to that, anti-trust action will make sure that is rectified. Regardless of how much you like Apple (I own a business repairing their products, own a Mac and an iPhone) no one company should ever wield so much power. It's most certainly not in our best interest. I fear you are not joking though and are just laughing off the implications of what you're saying. That it's funny and cool that a company should be so big it does not have to answer to one of the most important economic areas in the world.

A lot of great ideas just don't catch on because of a lack of media coverage or the right viral vector. I would have at least given it a try if I'd heard of it before it was shutting down. Shame.

If you think irrational violence is a "great idea"... congratulations, you're obviously a real Ultra MAGA moron!

From TFA: "Although longer than the Fehmarnbelt Tunnel, the Channel Tunnel was made using a boring machine, rather than by immersing pre-built tunnel sections." Keyword left out is "immersed", which seems is a different type of tunnel construction technique than was used for the Chunnel.

And that's the problem with so much reporting over the years. Source, among others: https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fourworldindata.org%2Fsaf.... For all the fear generated by nuclear, and even several major disasters that have permanently ruined it in the eyes of many, it's hardly killed anyone. It has other problems but they are certainly leser than those of the alternative mainstream energy sources that are currently in use.

Yeah, so now we're regulating things before they even exist I guess...

"Sorry, I'm not an anti-vaxxer but..." yeah, that's how anti-vaxxers sound. It's a baby with the bathwater kind of thing. That when a reasonable thinking human being looks at the statistics, suddenly it actually returns to being about as safe as most other things we're allowed to put in our bodies. Birth control pill causes many times more blood clots in women than these vaccines, for one thing. But that's just picking one random fact. In any case, the most rational argument for me is that there will be a greater increase in deaths from slowing vaccine distribution than the vaccine itself, so at least in a situation where there are not enough vaccines to go around (EU for example) the decision should be clear. What sucks, for you and I, is that they just won't be the same people. But, such is life on a planet with 8 billion people.

So you too think it is more accurate to say that the batteries are attached with glue than to say adhesive tape? It's obviously misleading. And it's an important distinction because adhesive tape is much easier to deal with than actual glue. ADHESIVE is quite simple to deal with, while GLUE would be really difficult.

Do you consider tape to be glue? Words have definitions for a reason. I think when most people think of glue they think of epoxy, superglue, wood glue, etc. (all liquids that help bond two surfaces). These are adhesive strips, essentially double-sided tape. I don't understand your question.

iFixit often incorrectly reports glue being used to fasten batteries or other things in Apple products, it's a blatent lie. What they use in almost all cases is a strong adhesive, which can be fairly difficult to remove for the average person but with something as simple as a plastic spatula and some experience is removed easily in a few minutes. This also applies to their iPad screens. I repair these things for a living.

Not sure why this is modded down. While I wouldn't go so far as to say shorts are good, they are certainly a bit of a counterweight to the general incentive that almost all actors have in being "cheerleaders", as you say. I also think it's important to point out that it is not a common occurrence to have 130% of a stock's public float shorted... AFAIK.