I'm guessing what that means is that a sponsor will pay that sort of rate for a sponsored post from an "influencer". Because yeah, otherwise that sounds crazy
Wouldn't this be blatantly in conflict with the EU cookie law? Like I'm not from Europe but my understanding was that it needs to be equally easy to accept or reject all cookies. Dark patterns aren't allowed
I have to say, I love the direction he takes this commentary. If you're tired of getting treated like garbage by Hasbro, there are hundreds of games out there which will not only respect you more, but are probably actually more fun for you and your group.
If you just want something that feels like D&D, come join us on the Pathfinder 2e side of the fence! Its rules are 100% free (both the base game and all expansions), the combat is way more satisfying, and there is a ton more variety in terms of character building and theorycrafting!
That's a great observation. They've put a lot of resources into their OTA update system. They could abuse that for lots of other things like distributed computing if it were profitable for them to do so, even if it introduces additional risk for their drivers.
You're making the same assumption many others in this thread do that "AI company" and "car company" are non-overlapping circles on a Venn diagram. In my view this is as ludicrous as saying that "Apple is a phone company, not a software company"
I don't disagree, but ML and AI are both meaningful terms in the field of computer science, neither of which is meant to be understood as actual human intelligence. Research into self-driving cars is AI research. Regardless of the success of that technology.
Which is exactly what my question that started this thread was about. I was asking what exactly it means for him to make this statement when they are already heavily invested in AI development.
Again, I personally don't view these things as mutually exclusive. It's a tech company and a car company. What's so crazy about that? Apple is a phone manufacturing company and a software company. Amazon is a cloud provider, a video streaming company, a shipping and logistics company, and an online storefront. Companies can be more than one thing.
Also "subset" means a member of. If X is a subset of Y, then X is a member of Y. It would not be incorrect to say, "the list of Y includes X"
Who's whinging and whining? I'm just explaining my reasoning. I actually am fascinated by the discussion that's developed here. I'm amazed at how upset people are getting about this. I made the above comment as a genuine question about what exactly is meant to change about Tesla following this statement from Elon. Like what exactly it means that he's acknowledged his company is heavily invested in AI development. I never would have guessed the semantics would be so controversial as to give me maybe my most heavily downvoted comment ever.
People are saying I'm using mental gymnastics, logical fallacies, bringing up completely irrelevant examples including Amber Heard and 1984 for some reason (???). People just love to find any reason to get outraged I guess.
Maybe people interpret any comment in a thread about Tesla as supportive if it doesn't begin with a virtue signalling "Fuck Elon" (which TBF, I agree with. Fuck that guy. But I don't really think it needed to be said for my comment)
The supermarket I used to work for is now a software company, as they build software in house
What % of that supermarket's operating expenses is software development? How big is their technology division compared to the full scale of the company? Do they invest R&D in developing novel technologies?
There are articles every day on Lemmy about how cars are becoming as high tech as smartphones. Is it so wrong to suggest that car companies are becoming a subset of tech companies?
So you could contend that Tesla is a battery company or a car company feasibly. Nobody ahead of the AI bubble would have mentioned Tesla and artificial intelligence in the same category.
Nobody really thought of AI as an independently marketable product before the AI bubble though. And many "AI companies" now have some kind of hardware product they are attaching their AI offering to. I'd circle back to the Apple example. They are a tech company and a phone company, but they also have Siri. That probably required a significant amount of R&D behind the scenes. Maybe we wouldn't call them an AI company in the same sense as OpenAI, but they've probably been selling an AI assistant as a prominent feature in their products for longer than OpenAI has been selling ChatGPT.
Besides, if it's what he makes money selling Tesla is a tax credit company.
Lol that's funny. I'd wholeheartedly agree with that assessment. But in my mind it's more about where the operating budget goes, not where the revenue comes from.
I would absolutely call Tesla a battery company. Would you not? They've invested a huge amount in battery R&D and sell them direct to consumers as well as use them in their cars. The rest of that stuff isn't something they invested heavily in developing, ie. they didn't invest R&D in developing new logistics technology for shipping cars.
Person I'm responding to said this was common in continental Europe