Except that's not what I wrote. I wrote that they should be de-prioritized. For-profit users (businesses) that don't contribute should simply be less important than non-profit users (normal people). Why? The simple fact is that non-profit users care about the software and improving it because they use it while for-profit users only care about making profit from the software. If they aren't going to share the profits that would support the project then you are better off serving normal users who want to see the software improve. even if it's not in a way they expect.

If a for-profit user has a suggestion/report that impacts non-profit users as well then it's all good.

If everyone agrees that "AI Is reshaping hacking" then it is logical to conclude that everyone agrees it's occurring at a pace faster than zero. </technically correct>

Wouldn't that be a win for everyone?

I don't disagree but currently utilities are not legally obligated to provide uninterrupted power which means they would simply not buy the power and allow the power to go out.

Are they not being isolated from outages? Besides, being part of the Virtual Power Plant (VPP) is voluntary, you can always quit.

True and per TFS "About 60 percent of homes would save money in the long run with solar panels and batteries."

No. The whole VPP scheme is a stopgap measure for energy generation. This means merely stabilizes the grid load while other power plants come online to meet the electrical demand. Also note that excessive utilization of the distributive capabilities will no doubt place a greater amount of strain on the physical grid which would end up costing them more money to repair.

I'm not saying you are wrong about the motives of utilities, I'm saying the relationship in a VPP is symbiotic rather than parasitic. Furthermore, should it become parasitic, people will stop being part of the VPP or legislation will be passed.

What you should be remembering is that these are not examples of companies providing "vital contributions" but that the vast majority of companies are freeloaders who do nothing to help the very open source community that they rely on every day. These companies are still getting a free ride, they simply have their own requirements for the software and so the community benefits. The GPL is written specifically so that individual efforts to assist in improving the software will benefit everyone that uses that software.

Oracle only spends money when theyt benefit from. This isn't charity or "mixed motives", it's entirely profit motivated and it should be recognized as such.

Open source developer should de-prioritize all communications from companies that aren't making contributions proportional to their profits because they are doing less than the average user which makes zero profit.

My concerns are more about microarchitecture design. Intel seems to be forced to advise users to disable fancy new instruction set extensions every time they add one because it's flawed. AMD is not perfect but the mitigations required are minimal in comparison.

ARM chips seem to be the best path forward at the moment. However, when companies (e.g. Apple) make their own extensions to the instruction set, they commonly fail to consider the security implications just like Intel.

Next we'll be hearing about an exciting new experiment whereby AI controlled robots are able to extract iron from copious amounts of human blood they've been programmed to have an unquenchable thirst for.

You only need just over 2,300 people to get enough iron from their blood to make a sword.

If you want to go for steel you'd need just over 16,000 people.

Honestly, I don't trust Intel CPUs for a second. All they are telling me with this is that they are heavily invested in bad hardware that they may or may not be running the mitigations for. If they are then it makes little sense and if they aren't then you are vulnerable. I mean, even SGX is insecure which is why it's deprecated.

I would trust them a lot more if they weren't using Intel CPUs.

The Guardian is a reputable source of journalism. The OP is just whining. You'll note they didn't criticize the content, only the source. That is standard tactic nowadays.

That said, they probably consider NewsMax or Breitbart as the epitome of "reputable" sources.

She identified three types of creativity -- combinational, exploratory and transformational -- by analyzing human and artificial intelligence.

It says she identified three types, but only two are listed. Where's the third?

As far as I know, no AI has come close to being licensed to give medical advice. There must be barriers in place preventing them to do so.

Neither are the hordes of people telling others to use an anti-parasitic paste to cure a virus. Or any other provably false medical treatment. And yet, there they are.

It was always about the ads. The ads will never stop,

Futurama is coming true.

I see the problem as being a distinct issue with how the C++ library is written. Just about everything done in python has an equivalent in C++, so the only problem seems to be a an unwillingness to provide an equivalent library.

That if WE (Canada) don't produce oil and sell it to the market, some other country, probably form the middle east, will!

Why does that sound so familair? Oh right. That's where I heard something similar.