It wouldn’t kill Tesla, per se. A company’s stock price only really matters insofar as it helps them to carry debt. The company doesn’t actually directly gain or lose money based on the stock price. What it affects, primarily, is the shareholders of the company.
Well… Fair enough. Ain’t no arguing with that.
You forgot “Tells advertisers to go fuck themselves”
The problem is that his payout, like the rest of his fortune, is in exceedingly overvalued Tesla stock. So using that to finance Twitter means selling, and every time he sells the price takes a hard dip because Tesla investors know they’re standing on a soap bubble and they are extremely nervous about it bursting. Any sudden uptick in sales pressure is liable to cause a small avalanche of investors abandoning ship.
The process of buying Twitter alone cut his net worth by half because of how much it cratered the Tesla stock price.
Listen, if AI was replacing executives instead of hardworking creative types, I’d be all for it.
Christ, with how limited the brainpower of your average c-suite is, you wouldn’t need “AI”. I could probably replace most of them with an excel spreadsheet.
What the fuck are you on about? They’re talking about using AI to replace the incredibly talented human labour at studios they own. Y’know, like the people who made Valheim, Deep Rock Galactic, Satisfactory, the new Tomb Raider titles, Metro Exodus…
Embracer are shit, but what makes them shit is that they’re fucking murdering a lot of genuinely talented studios that produce great work.
Embracer, functionally speaking, have zero understanding of how game dev works. The whole thing is just a massive investment fund. Basically a bunch of rich assholes who bought up every small developer they could get their hands on and then tried to MBA all the numbers up by cutting headcounts and doing other useless metrics driven bullshit. Then when this failed to produce meteoric returns on investment they all went surprised pikachu face.
In order to buy out Paradox, EA would have to make an offer for their entire existing share float, which would then have to be accepted by the shareholders. This means that they would almost certainly sell their stock at over market value (because why would they accept less?).
From their point of view, this would be a good thing. So why then would the shareholders allow this project to be cancelled if it was about to net them a huge payout, according to your theory?
What in the actual fuck are you on about?
(and other browsers)
… that aren’t Firefox.
Polling in Ukraine consistently puts approval of Zelensky’s handling of the war at around 90%.
Please actually try listening to the people you’re speaking on behalf of before you speak.
Well, most of their efforts have been relatively low cost on their end. Stuff like manifest v3 isn’t actually particularly expensive to do. Just requires you to have near total capture of the web browser market.
Yes, but server-side injection, if I understand it correctly, means you have to actually remux the videos into a single stream. That’s additional processing load, which is basically their main cost of business.
It’s quite likely that the cost actually outweighs the gains. Adblocking really isn’t all that prevalent across Internet users as a whole. I think the stats are something like 10% or lower.
In the analogy, I have a whole lot of their money. You never watch Heat? Like that, but I didn’t fuck it up thanks to my many years of watching heist movies and playing Payday 2.
Oh man, love this idea. I’m gonna try it on my bank. “Here’s the deal, I keep all the money that I’ve already stolen, and you have to agree not to call the cops or hire any additional security.” Brilliant.
Not sure what the bank is supposed to get out of it though.
Yeah, I try to make this point as often as I can. The notion that AI hallucinates only wrong answers really misleads people about how these programs actually work. It couches it in terms of human failings rather than really getting at the underlying flaw in the whole concept.
LLMs are a really interesting area of research, but they never should have made it out of the lab. The fact that they did is purely because all science operates in the service of profit now. Imagine if OpenAI were able to rely on government funding instead of having to find a product to sell.
“Listen, we already watered down our deadly poison a little and it’s still killing us. Unless you have a better idea we’ll just have to keep drinking deadly poison.”
helping to develop
This, my friend, is the hype. Musk has never helped to develop anything. He’s not an engineer or a scientist. He’s a rich asshole who buys his way into tech projects, all of which were either doing fine without him (Tesla, PayPal) , fail utterly (Hyperloop), or suck up resources that could almost certainly be applied more effectively by the government itself if they weren’t being funneled into a for-profit operation (SpaceX).
For the people who don’t know the answer? Yes.
Not everything you see is intended for your consumption. Let people enjoy learning things.