I’d say the most recent major influences were the IPO and the emergence of LLMs.

Reddit becoming a publicly traded company and the preparation to do so certainly initiated a major shift in its priorities.

Ai and large language models make it easier than ever to create shiny, but low quality content.

And the rest is just reddit becoming more mainstream leading to an overall shift towards banal rather than niche topics.

They also often want growth beyond what the original market niche supports.

Sounds similar to “Spezi”, a mixture of cola and orange soda, which is quite popular here in Germany.

But you are commenting on Lemmy, which i’d argue makes you atypical and your media/news consumption probably looks very different to that of the average American.

Sadly I think Airbus is already busy as is. As far as I understand it, they were already supply constrainted before this and have their order books filled for years. Otherwise Boeing’s most recent quality and safety issues would have had a larger effect.

I don’t know if they could increase capacities even if they wanted to, or if a volatile situation like this would allow for the investments that would be necessary to do so.

Imo this just accelerates China’s own ambitions to build up their own rival with Comac. This development makes the transition less gradual and they’ll have to eat some losses, but that’s something their system is capable of.

On the other hand it’s actually worse for the US, because they’ll miss out on those sales and might not be able to sell them somewhere else. With Boeing already struggling and this being a key industry, this will mean that it might require more subsidies in the future to keep them going or succeed in the turnaround.

Does this actually matter that much? I have a pixel 6a that has the visor style camera bump and with a case on it just disappears.

And even if I’d use the phone without case Google’s bar shaped design still allows the phone to lay stable on a surface without wobble, just at a slight angle instead of flat. Which I guess would be an issue with other designs.

I’ll have to disagree with you on that one. In my opinion for a first entrance in the franchise this is the right call.

There is a balance that’s needed between movies within a shared universe being interconnected and having their own style and being seperat to some degree. And I think part of why the earlier MCU worked and now (at least to me) it doesn’t, is partially down to them not achieving this balance.

Make the first movie of a particular part unique like e.g. with the first gotg with maybe some smaller references and gradually build up the overlaps. I think the MCU until endgame did it really well, introducing new strands one at a time and interweaving them slowly with the occasional huge mashup in the avenger movies.

But ever since then they’ve just kept doubling down on everything being interconnected and even expanded it to not just movies, but TV shows. This way you don’t really identify to the same degree with the individual characters and it also starts to feel like more of a burden to in a way have to keep up with everything. Which eventually just gets too much and at least for me just lead to just kind of drop out of the whole thing.

The first was released in December 2018, the second in June 2023, and this one is now planned for June 2027. If that holds it would still be a shorter turnaround than between the first and second movie, which turned out great. So while I’d agree that normally it would be a bad sign, i don’t think we can draw any conclusions in this case.

As i understand it most of the money they are investing goes into new datacenters. So when a model gets outdone by a new one they still have those, unlike e.g. OpenAI that use other companies resources (i think microsoft and oracle mostly?). In a way companies that use those external clouds to train their own models are financing the investments needed for the big players.

AWS, GCP and Azure are all growing 30%+ yoy, are profitable and if anything supply constraint in that they can’t build more capacity fast enough to meet demand. So it seems to me that to some degree they are already recouping some of those investments. I don’t see a drop in demand for compute, and even if using/training ai would become less resource intensive, Jevons paradox would just lead to more demand.

Of course they also burn a lot of money as anytime a new model gets trained and beats the older ones, it kind of renders the resources spend on the previous one worthless. But to me that seems like the cost of doing business.

The current investments they can afford. What would actually lead to shedding huge amounts of marketcap is, if they’d let a rival establish themselves. Similar to how the movie studios didn’t get into streaming early (mostly to not hurt their cable business) and gave Netflix enough time to establish themselves.

To comment on something you mentioned in another reply below:

I just don’t see a world where most people are coughing up more than $10 a month for AI.

I think the big money will be in the business world, where salaries for actual people are high enough that saving a person even a few hours/week or replacing a single employee saves so much money that even expensive subscriptions would easily be worth it.

On the consumer side as you say running smaller models locally will likely be the norm. But that means it would be free for both the likes of Deepseek and Google. And then it’ll just come down to who has access to personal information and is better embedded, which would be likely be whoever also controls other aspects of a users life, such as Goole with Android, gmail etc. Money here will be made just as it is done with other free services.

The incumbents will go broke.

Who do you mean with that? Companies like OpenAI or Anthropic, or do you also include the likes of Google/Amazon/Microsoft?

With the former I can see it, but the later also profit from providing the infrastructure (and have other profitable business), so imo those will be just fine.

I am more surprised xAI investors approved. Especially for such a high price.

Twitter actually imo had (and still has) quite a bit of value, but that is only to further Elons ideological goals. As a business it is on a downward trend and was never a cash cow to begin with. Comparatively little room for speculation. It’s a stagnating or declining business and doesn’t generate large profits if any.

xAI on the other hand is pretty much in the same spot as most other ai companies. It has yet to prove to be a highly profitable business, but there is plenty of room for speculation. So as long as the bubble doesn’t burst, it has a high valuation.

Which is all that would matter for any Twitter investor that wants to unload his shares. Although I doubt it would be via ipo, but rather in private funding rounds.

The problematic thing with genetic data is that it isn’t just about your own choice. If one person gives away their information, then that also allows to draw conclusions about their relatives.

I find it’s at least theoretically in the right spot for mass adoption. Something like a valve index or bigscreen vr paired with a strong gaming PC would of course offer a much better experience. But thats just not realistic for the masses.

Also Apple failed with their expensive premium device (although I guess it was always kind of a dev device sold to the masses).

It’s certainly debatable, but at least for the price it offers a lot imo.

The quest exclusives are of course frustrating, but it makes a lot of sense from a business perspective, considering Meta is trying to position themselves as the VR platform (similar to say android with smartphones).

If you don’t mind Meta/Facebook, then the oculus quest headsets are also very affordable hardware and deliver a good experience. I think the issue lies with content.

Smartphones or handhelds like the steam deck with flat screens could use plenty of already existing content made for screens. With VR you want different content that is made specifically for it. There is a decent amount of games (but still much fewer than for other devices), but honestly not that much more.

Additionally it also can only really be used at home, where most already have other devices.

It’s a chicken and egg problem. But imo if there were more genuine unique productivity tasks and experiences available through VR, we would see more adoption.

Tell that to everyone playing games like path of exile (which i admittedly have also played too much of in the past).

If you regularly exercise your max is probably higher than estimated.

I was under the impression that the maximum heart rate is something that can not be trained. This source suggests that if anything training regularly would lower a persons max heart rate.

I just think that either one is serious enough about trying to optimize ones training efficiency, at which point the formula wouldn’t be accurate enough for me. Or one takes a more causal approach at which point doing most runs at “conversational pace” is a good enough rule of thumb.

I feel like if one wants to truly train based on heart rate, then I wouldn’t recommend going by an estimate like that, but just go out and do a workout designed to push the heart rate to its limit.

deleted by creator

TIL, thanks for letting me know!