JWSC

mjtomlin said:

JWSC said:

Tesla’s AI is monstrously superior to anything else out there and they’ve got hundreds of millions of miles of road data to input into that AI.  You can’t do it all with modeling and simulation.  Tesla along with Panasonic have done their homework on battery technology.  Tesla has refined the electric motor to new levels of performance.  Tesla autos are among the safest in the industry..

How many miles of data does Apple have from it’s street mapping endeavor? They could’ve also been training an AI model on the road. So Apple has the data as well.In fact, I would say Apple had more types of data in every time of situation, since their cars go up and down EVERY road.

Tesla vehicle road miles have to be at least two if not 3 or 4 orders of magnitude greater than that of Apple's mapping fleet.  So, not even close.  If you didn't watch Tesla's AI Day I suggest you should.  It'll be an eye opener.

GeorgeBMac said:

tmay said:

GeorgeBMac said:

22july2013 said:

tmay said:

... Stupid.   Very, very stupid.

The post above is chock full of misinformation.
Given the many times that I have countered George since he has been here, I'll spare you the details. Do your own searches on the details.

It's actually entertaining whenever GBM speaks. I always wonder how he's going to defend brutal dictatorships, and he always manages. I would like to have seen him defend the dictatorships back around 1940.

I wish websites like this would have a way we could block certain users from being seen by us. I know a few people would block me, but I think GBM would take top spot.

I don;t defend "brutal dictatorships".

But I do object to instigating totally unnecessary wars.

All we have to do is guarantee that NATO will not threaten Russia by moving into (another of) its neighbor(s).

But, we instead favor war.   Economic war (at least for us).  But still, war.

Who is going to pay for this war of ours?   As usual, it will be us.

But, I am sorry if the truth does not support your war mongering imperialism.  Perhaps it is YOU that should be blocked?

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/china/2022-02-21/chinas-ukraine-crisis?utm_campaign=tw_daily_soc&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter_posts

The Ukraine crisis is primarily a standoff between Russia and the West, but off to the side, another player stands awkwardly: China. Beijing has tried to walk a fine line on Ukraine. On one hand, it has taken Russia’s side, blaming NATO expansion for causing the crisis and alleging that U.S. predictions of an imminent invasion are aggravating it. On the other hand, especially as the risk of military conflict has grown, it has called for diplomacy over war. 

If Beijing had its way, it would maintain strong ties with Moscow, safeguard its trade relationship with Ukraine, keep the EU in its economic orbit, and avoid the spillover from U.S. and EU sanctions on Moscow—all while preventing relations with the United States from significantly deteriorating. Securing any one of these objectives may well be possible. Achieving all of them is not. 

If Russia invades Ukraine, Beijing could throw Moscow a lifeline: economic relief to alleviate the effect of U.S. sanctions. But doing so would damage Chinese relations with Europe, invite severe repercussions from Washington, and drive traditionally nonaligned countries such as India further into the arms of the West. If Beijing snubs Moscow, by contrast, it may weaken its closest strategic partnership at a time when, given deteriorating security in Asia, it is most in need of outside help.

China should throw Russia under the bus, because Russia is already a failed state, and it wouldn't take much for it to collapse yet again. Might as well give it a push.

We are pushing Russia and China (and a few others) together. 

We are falling back on our last bullet:  financial sanctions  -- and we not using it wisely.   Soon they will have a work-around (actually, they probably already do).

We should have settled this while we could.

As all of you know, I rarely agree with George. But in the above statement he is absolutely right.  The bombastic antagonism we have we heard coming from the US and UK has only exacerbated an already tense situation. We are pushing our adversaries together while implementing ineffective policies.

It was not inevitable that Putin would choose to invade. But from a political standpoint we pushed him into it. We armed and provided intelligence to an adversarial government along their border. We advocated that the Ukraine stand it’s ground and attempt to regain control of the Russian language dominated regions. In doing so we provided political ammunition to Putin to make the case to the Russian people that Ukraine was a threat. It’s a spectacular fail.

And why should we care about a spat between two kleptocratic regimes that could care less about their own citizens.  All we have done is help to fan the flames of war, sans evidence (you just have to trust us - right), which will end up getting those caught in the middle killed. If two decades of intelligence failure isn’t enough to teach us to beware of government spokespeople, I don’t know what is.

tmay said:

GeorgeBMac said:

emoeller said:

Putin is maniacal and not easily dissuaded.   If both iOS and Android were cut off that would be devastating as the home grown mobile OS that Russia is using is terrible.   Along with other sanctions it would cripple the Russian economy.

Putin is far from maniacal.   He is calculating.  Coldly, calculating for what is best for his country.

In 2014 Hillary promised Ukraine a NATO membership if they left the Russian fold.

NATO and its missiles, fighter planes, bombers, tanks, etc... on Russia's border are a direct threat to Russia -- just as they were to us in 1960 when Russia started moving them into Cuba.

How did Putin respond to Hillary's foolishness?  By making sure she was not elected president.  And, we didn't hear anymore about NATO in Ukraine till Biden took office.

How did Russia respond to all of that?

Russia wanted ALL Ukrainians to have a vote - so they supported the Minsk agreement.  But western Ukraine blocked it (after agreeing to it) -- so only western Ukrainians got to vote -- and they are voting to let in NATO missiles next door to Russia.   Russia is understandably worried about that -- just as we were when missiles were shipped to Cuba in 1960 when we said:  Either remove them or there WILL BE WAR!

The west knows better than to face Russia militarily.  So it is taking the Trump route with "sanctions".
But, like with Trump's.  It is us who will pay the price. Oil prices are already headed up to $100.

Meanwhile, we've been throwing economic warfare around since 2016 and those we are targeting are beginning to take action to defend themselves.  That will weaken us even further.  Actually, a LOT further when the dollar and U.S. financial systems are no longer the world standard.

The losers in this cock fight will be, once again, us, the people.

All we have to do is commit to never letting NATO into Ukraine and this nonsense would be at an end.  We would lose nothing and the world would gain peace.

But no.  Instead we're starting an economic war.

... Stupid.   Very, very stupid.

The post above is chock full of misinformation.

Given the many times that I have countered George since he has been here, I'll spare you the details. Do your own searches on the details.

Here a twitter link to current news on the Ukraine Crisis;

https://twitter.com/i/lists/1494877848087187461

I don’t know about the misinformation part. While I don’t agree with everything George said above, I agree with most of it, especially the conclusion. The losers will be us.

Economic sanctions will be ineffective and only hurt technology businesses such as Apple. Banning the direct sales of iPhones and Macs will only encourage third party intermediaries. It’s pointless.

Alright.  I'll play devil's advocate here.  Someone has to.  As much as I agree that people should have more choice of ISPs, this seems to be a bit of overreach by the FCC.  Cheerleaders of this new rule should be cognizant of the unintended consequences.

1) The argument that apartment tenants have no ability to shop for a better deal neglect the fact that they can shop around for different apartment complexes that have different rules.  It assumes the poor tenants are entirely helpless against "greedily and ruthless" landlords, which is a bit of a stretch.  It's a disingenuous argument and plays to prejudice.  One can also make the argument that market forces should be permitted to work.

2) The FCC appears to be infringing on the rights of apartment complex owners to manage and operate their properties as they see fit.  The FCC stepping into apartment regulation risks increasing overhead costs for compliance and verification of compliance.  Complying with Government regulation isn't just about compliance.  You typically have to show documented proof of compliance, which may involve undergoing the occasion audit.  It is not unreasonable to assume that these costs will be passed on to renters when the lease is set to renew.  This would be true for all apartment complex owners, regardless of whether they permit access to multiple ISPs or not.  There's no free lunch.

foregoneconclusion said:

Trademark law requires you to actively protect your trademark. This is just another example of that. Regardless of the outcome, it serves the purpose of showing Apple is serious about its trademark. I would guess that this particular example is due to Apple being in the tv/film business now. 

True. Regardless of whether they win or lose, the lawsuit will put Apple on record as attempting to protect their trademark, which could come in handy in future lawsuits that may be more applicable. Nevertheless, actions like this tarnish their reputation in the public eye. One can only hope that Apple weighed the costs and benefits carefully before making this decision.