DarkMouze
About
- Username
- DarkMouze
- Joined
- Visits
- 17
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 160
- Badges
- 0
- Posts
- 38
Reactions
-
Google's 'Bard' chatbot completely botches first demo
waveparticle said:The nearest star is four light years away. There is no way any telescope will be able to see a planet of any star so far away. -
'Scary Fast' iMac with M3 is here with few external changes
-
Battle of the sexes: Men and women like different iPhone models
-
Altman beats OpenAI board and returns as CEO after stormy exit
CelticPaddy said:palomine said:What is Apple doing with AI these days? -
White House calls Apple and Google 'harmful' in bid to cut app store fees
Madbum said:spheric said:Madbum said:This White House , which I regretfully voted For
is fast tracking our families to a Nuclear War vs Russia….
is helping European Union bashing America’s greatest companies while doing nothing against European companies
a complete shit show in more ways than one ….
I was waiting for someone to tie this into EU-bashing.
but current American government stands with Europeans more than Americans …. -
Apple plans slimmest iPhone 17 & MacBook Pro designs following iPad Pro success
chasm said:scampercom said:I only carry my phone when I’m traveling, and it’s been a harrowing experience. The battery seems to drain so quickly (see: range anxiety) and I’m constantly having to manage it. What I’d love more than anything: keep the damn phones the same thickness—or make them slightly thicker—and give me solid 18-hours of life.Take a look at the battery pack you probably (or should) have to keep your iPhone charged when you're away from power outlets. It's most likely to be considerably thicker and heavier than your iPhone, especially if you really need 18 hours (when do you sleep?) of "solid" (ie in-use) battery life. Now imagine slapping a screen on that battery and then the computer components on top of that, and that's the weight and thickness of your new iPhone.It sounds to me like what really needs constant managing here is your phone addiction ... -
Apple appeals Apple Watch ban, citing 'irreparable harm' to its business
NEO_STEPHENS said:Oh PULEEZE Apple, you're a $3 trillion company, there will be no irreparable harm done to you. And if there is, that should teach you to use other company's technology without permission - something you as a company is well known for going after other companies who you think is using your technology and even small mom and pop shops that have fruit in their company's name. So no sympathy for you if you lose a few sales for cheating.
Obviously if Apple DID, then all you say is true and I’d have no argument with you.You do, of course, imply that you do have solid knowledge that Apple did infringe in this case…I assume you wouldn’t mind sharing your source? -
It's impossible to compete with Apple, says third-party iPhone repair shops
Alrescha said:In 2019 via the BBC:In response to a question about how much the company earns from repair services, Apple said: "For each year since 2009, the costs of providing repair services has exceeded the revenue generated by repairs."Given that, it seems optimistic to think that independent repair shops could do better. They have every right to try, but Apple has no obligation to make their business model profitable.
-
Altman beats OpenAI board and returns as CEO after stormy exit
mpantone said:planetary paul said:Obviously the intention was to kill off the company. Some serious litigation is in order methinks.
Certainly not Altman's. He had a large equity stake in the company. It was his baby.
Certainly not the board of directors. They represent the shareholders.
Certainly not Microsoft. They have 49% ownership. Destroying OpenAI would mean flushing most of their investment stake down the toilet. (That's what Elon Musk is singlehandedly in the process of doing with X/Twitter.)
My hunch (unsubstantiated) is that the BOD identified irregularities that pointed to fraudulent behavior by Altman, akin to Elizabeth Holmes (Theranos) and Sam Bankman-Fried (FTX). Liars don't commit just one lie. Lying permeates almost everything they do. Not just their business dealings, also their personal lives.
If the boards of Theranos and FTX had identified such issues early enough with Holmes and SBF, those companies might still exist today.
We won't learn what it is but some general information will probably come to light someday. Not today, not tomorrow, but the reasons won't stay hidden forever.
Remember that this is a privately held company that lost -$540 million on revenues of $28 million in 2022.
Silicon Valley is pretty small. My guess is that the biggest and best connected venture capitalists and IP law firms already have an idea of what went wrong.
The shareholders can revolt and elect a new BOD but Microsoft has 49% control. My guess is that some minority shareholder, probably some bigshot VC got suspicious from Altman's behavior, started poking around and found something rotten.
The people who would benefit from an OpenAI collapse are the competitors, companies like Alphabet, Meta, maybe Amazon, IBM, a bunch of startups, etc. Maybe a disgruntled former OpenAI employee, a jilted lover (we saw SBF's former girlfriend testify against him). But not someone with a sizable equity stake in OpenAI.
Silicon Valley has plenty of hubris and guys like Altman have an excess of it. Executives like Holmes and SBF have made people see red flags when people talk it up without showing real results (that is, profitability). My guess is that this will eventually end up with legal action against Altman and possibly other senior execs. The CFO would come under heavy scrutiny, there's always a money trail behind any sort of corporate shenanigans.
"Fake it until you make it" is not a real business strategy in the real world. That might be fine in a movie but it doesn't work in high tech especially when you're playing with someone else's money. The numbers eventually don't add up.
This is going to get more interesting. -
Zuckerberg thinks Apple is making aggressive moves now to control the metaverse
"I'm sure they believe at some level in the things that they're doing and think that they're good for their customers, but it can't just be a coincidence that it also aligns very well with their strategy."Why would any company NOT do something that was good for their customers and also aligned with their strategy? That just seems like good business. Is he seriously defending the approach of doing things that are bad for customers but align well with their strategy? (Although I guess he would need to try to defend that approach, wouldn’t he…)