To me, there’s a difference between ads that help me learn about brands or products, or make me laugh or have some positive emotion (Super Bowl ads, billboard signs, and movie previews come to mind) and ads that take over search results, interfere with the content I want to consume on an already-small screen, or are just distasteful to me. I can’t say I like ads but I recognize that I specifically dislike some ads more than others.
That’s the important question. Someone else on the thread suggested it was to divert attention from one failure (AI) and now they have two. I wonder how Steve Jobs would react to this mess. Maybe he’d say he would not have been in such a mess in the first place. :)
I thought the same thing. Some of the commenters said this move might be related to stock price or appeasing shareholders, so I wonder if that, too, was directed at them, as in “we’re big and we plan on getting even bigger”
I agree, and I think the government’s incentive might also be a having strategic production capability in the US. Maybe they’re concerned about TSMC’s future with the tension between China and Taiwan?
That's all fine, but this is definitely heading into socialist territory. I guess they're out of ideas and this is how they incentivize. The free markets have failed?
My hypothesis is that this is government response (own stake in Intel) to another government’s action (hint take over of Taiwan) and as such is outside the free market. But I have no evidence to support it, it’s just an opinion and it could be that they view Intel as “too big to fail” or something like that as you suggest.
Encryption at Rest makes it easy to reason about data hygiene, since access to the data is gated through access to the keys.
You want to delete data? Toss the keys. You want to confidentially process data? Make the keys available to a TEE or such. You want to prevent yourself from having constant access to the data? Let the client provide the keys. And of course, you want to protect the keys? Use an HSM.
Interviews are more thorough because firing became harder.
It used to be that if you hired an employee and found out they aren’t good at their job you could fire them. Today it is complicated and can backfire if the employee believes they were fired because of any reason other than their skills, or were not provided with ample opportunity and support to succeed.
The solution is a lengthier process based on the assumption that once hired, the company is stuck with the employee unless they decide to leave.
Yes. How many ways do you have to reliably monetize a portion of that $100 that goes to the utility company, though? At its core, proof of work (not Bitcoin's anymore because of ASICs), allows that.
I dont need to monetize it, I can keep the $100 and not buy the energy. And it's not "reliable" if I get rug pulled (extemely common) or someone else has a more effcient mining setup (extremely common).
Maybe if I'm stuck on inefficient resistive heatong in winter, mining makes sense.
