Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)BU
Posts
12
Comments
4,779
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • What do you mean what was the plan?

    I mean what the hell were they thinking back from around 2014-2020?

    This is the new CEO, spinning into “stripping Intel off for parts” mode.

    Exactly, they seemingly still don't have anything close to a plan on anything that used to be their main strength. They've only doubled down at first, and now they are pulling back. Making a "better" CPU is not a plan or a strategy.

  • The cards are good value, but I don't think so, the die is to big, so they are expensive to make, and despite the good value, they are not very successful in the market.
    It may be something that could succeed if they continue, but they are not there yet.

    The cards are good from a consumer perspective, but not from a business perspective.

  • It's insane how twisted in the head you have to be to think that killing your daughter is the honorable thing to do!
    Religion is harmful to both individuals and society. Extreme religion is extremely harmful to both individuals and society.

  • This is insanely embarrassing for Intel:
    https://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/01/the-7-trillion-promise-of-self-driving-vehicles.html

    AI was why Intel bought Mobileye in 2017 for $15 billion!
    But instead of leveraging it to catch up, they've fallen further behind, not even able to keep up with AMD?!
    AMD even when they ran at deficits and near bankruptcy for years around that time, continued to work on compute, and although they couldn't quite keep up with Nvidia when almost all AMD R&D was focused on Ryzen, they managed to stay in 2nd place, even allowing them to capitalize on the blockchain hype, and remain a runner up for AI.
    While Intel kept churning out 5-10% faster cheap 4 core CPU's at ever higher prices each year, even when smartphones got 8 cores as standard!
    And when Ryzen came out with 8 cores as standard, Intel was caught completely off guard, despite it had been public knowledge for a while! And Intel staying on 4 cores was obviously ridiculous.
    Ryzen came out in 2017, same year Intel Bought Mobileye, and since then Intel seems to have gone from one disaster to the next in everything they touch!

    Intel used to be leading in laptop-, desktop-, server-CPU, SSD and process technology, all those leads are lost, and they failed to catch up on AI?

    WTF was the plan? Is there ANYTHING that's going well for Intel?

  • The AI will (probably) be familiar with every possible issue that no human will be able to match.
    I'm not sure what kind of "completely unexpected" situation is possible can happen, that a normal surgeon would handle better?
    But I agree it would have to be a lot smarter than current LLM and self driving for instance. Like a whole other level of smarter. But I think that is where we are heading.

  • Tesla failure rate is more than 2,5 times the average of other electric cars.
    Despite being dumped in security check, Tesla workshop claimed the cars were fine, so owners complained about the decision to flunk them. But the decision was upheld as being absolutely correct!
    In short Tesla doesn't recognize security problems, even when they are clearly pointed out to them!

    Tesla cars are shit from a safety perspective, and other elements are coming under scrutiny, like lack of buttons and the console screen being distracting while driving. That's apart from the well known hidden handles, that prevent quick exit in case of emergency, and the stupid blinker buttons on the wheel.

    Tesla is simply not designed for safe driving in any meaningful way. And even the assistance features create hazards instead of helping safety. Like the infamous phantom breaking.

    Maybe Tesla is an exciting car to drive, but not in a good way!

  • You are absolutely right, I completely forgot that she claimed to have bought them in an "Asian market" that she couldn't remember where was, and she must have paid cash.
    And that she had erased her phone for some reason.

    Good catch. 👍

  • This is the best article I've read on this story yet.
    It quickly becomes very obvious that she killed those 3 people, where the only remaining question is whether she did it on purpose.
    But the matter with the very obviously different colored plate, is very damaging to her.
    And then the matter of throwing out a mushroom dryer that has traces of the toxin. A dryer she claimed she had never owned!
    And the fact that she had used a website warning against the Death cap at certain sites.
    And the fact that she had visited exactly those sites.
    Giving children chocolate with dried mushroom in it, and remarking they didn't even notice!
    Her story about throwing up after the guests left, but she still went to the hospital a couple of days later claiming she felt ill, but there was no trace of the toxin in her blood. That does not ring true either.
    The invitation itself was considered a bit strange too, since it was not something she usually did.
    And the fact that she had been suspected of trying to kill her husband before, does not help.

    Seems to me the police did good work here, maybe because she had been suspected before? And the evidence against her is pretty overwhelming that these killings were intentional.

  • I'm not sure what your point is? You state according to the prosecutor, when I just stated that a sentence is not normally according to a prosecutor, but an actual court decision!
    The headline clearly indicates that he actually got life in prison, as he was sentenced by the court. But completely fails to mention the actual judgement by the court?
    The prosecutor is not responsible for announcing sentencing, but the prosecutor is the only source stated.
    Repeating what the prosecutor stated once again does not help.

  • I know that, that's common knowledge.
    But if the research shows anything that's statistically significant, it would show a level of benefit.
    To say that it could as in hypothetically, implies the research didn't really show anything one way or the other.
    You could say the same of homeopathic medicine. It could be a benefit, except nothing has ever shown it to be.
    Personally I'm pretty sure owning a pet like a dog or a cat is indeed beneficial, so I find it disappointing if this is not shown in research.
    I believe there has been studies made that show lower rate of heart conditions among pet owners. There is also a sort of consensus that it helps psychologically for instandce against depression.
    So it's not a long stretch to think it "could" help brain functions in other ways too.
    It's just disappointing that according to the headline, the study failed to show that. Which made me not care to read it.