stubish

Your median price new price is over double the cheapest new price, so no. EVs are now available out of the luxury car bracket in most markets. The cheapest car available on the Australian market was briefly a BYD EV. Not everyone wants to pay for heated seats or celebrity endorsements.

Analysis is available for 5 years at https://driveauthority.com/is-byd-reliable-after-5-years/ , including actual maintenance costs over the period. No empirical evidence for 10 years yet of course. You certainly do want to buy expecting it to last for a couple of decades because the deprecation rate is really high (maybe because the tech has been moving so fast).

I can't type while simultaneously using another control like a mouse, joystick, tablet. I guess I could overengineer the problem by growing more arms. And even that doesn't solve the problem of mouse pointers having to constantly jump between UI elements and a canvas because they can only be in one place at a time.

I look forward to your typing speed tutorials for arthritis sufferers.

Add in hormone replacement therapy to reduce menopausal problems and these studies are going to get very confusing.

Huh, my passkey isn't working. Guess I have to go do the account recovery dance or login old school to fix it.

So password managers work right up until you stop using the password manager. This also applies to passkeys magic protection against phishing. Because of limitations with passkeys, there is always an alternative login mechanism or recovery process and that is just as easy to phish. Maybe easier given the complexity of passkeys and befuddled users.

And Orange Roughy, available in Australian fish and chip shops, spawned around the same time as the first British colony there.

I don't know. It could be profitable enough to fund the later stages of the build, or proof enough to bring in more risk adverse investors. I don't think we would be seeing press releases if the numbers show that continuing the build is economically doomed.

This plant became operational after 2 years and has started paying back the investment. If your project is going to take 20 years before it comes online, you are going to need much, much higher returns to justify the investment. There is also a lot more risk involved in keeping a project alive and viable over a 20 year period, again pumping the expected returns needed before investors will invest.

If a human was manually reviewing your logs, maybe. But that isn't the problem. Your stream is already a pile of garbage amongst billions of other piles of garbage. Programs will find the keywords they are looking for no matter if they are looking in a big pile of garbage or small.

If you want supply independence, you have to start sometime. It is unlikely that Taiwan joins the EU and solves the problem that way.

Yes, that sort of boycott requires sacrifice, choosing to not deal with people who have different opinions. Its why mostly people might boycott meat but not people who eat meat.

I think it is the point. Bots have become the enemy. Most websites will have a strong opinion first time they look at the weblogs and realize how much of their capacity and money is being used for... something other than what they wanted it to be used for. Bots are no longer a rounding error. And yes, there are certainly innocent victims in the roadkill.

A bot owners enshittification is a site admins salvation. The toggle is trivial to turn on or off. What will site admins do I wonder?

Capitalism, starting the moment TLD registrars first bid for the monopoly to charge rent. And continuing today, where I think only Cloudflare offer below or at cost domain registration, charging nothing themselves and just passing on the other mandatory fees to the rent seekers. It has had centralization at its heart since the beginning, when someone had to allocate IP addresses and everyone else had to agree (or we would have internets and not The Internet), which enabled this. I wonder if it would have turned out differently if, instead of central IP address allocation, clients had generated a UUID and it was accepted on The Internet unless consensus agreed it wasn't unique? But I don't think we knew how to do that then and technical limitations. Heck, crypto export laws would have killed it and required a central authority to prove that a UUID was you and not an imposter.

I'm surprised the market accepted this sort of franchisee set pricing. When I saw how airport prices differed from regular prices, I just tried harder to avoid airport food. Its a world where people drive distances for a cent per liter in petrol, but they don't pay attention to where they can get their same dinner cheaper?

"always free to determine the final price" indicates they are aware they are forcing collusion and creating an illegal cartel. Head office telling two competing franchises how much to charge is essentially the same as two competing franchisees agreeing to pricing over a round of golf. If it gets that far, will be interesting to see who ends up holding that bag.

Once you change the artwork and branding, why is there no legal right to sell? Your defense against cloning are trademark, patent, copyright and trade secret. And the lawyers and money to enforce it and the courts to agree. And if the AI does it, rather than you feeding it copyrighted or trademarked assets, then did you violate copyright or trademark law or did the AI company or does this no longer make sense in a post AI world? The article touches on how current AI services launder copyright and trademark in the 'choose one' section.

The article gives the timeframe at a decade or more. But I think it is safe to say that when it can happen, it will happen. IBM PC popular? Clone it and get in on the profits. Flappy Birds becomes popular? Hundreds of copies get released trying to get in on the money. Wordle? Even more. Article talks about moats to stop this and how changes in IP law enforcement are eroding them. We already have AI companies complaining about competitors stealing their efforts, unable to appreciate the irony on how the models were initially created and the precedents they set. Maybe the sinophobes will be right and Deepseek just a cheap knockoff of American AI, but will you care if the price is right?

Recreating the IBM PC bios, enabling clone PCs and changing the market completely?

One of the points the article makes is that copying is now essentially free. So if you spend money building something, someone else can copy it and use all the money they didn't spend marketing their version. And why license software anyway, when you can just clone it and even tweak it better towards your business cases? Will you be paying your Adobe subscription or buying the knockoff version of Photoshop?

He is mentioning GTA a lot because the article is a warning to the big players. Today, you can repeatably clone games from 90s. Next year, Rockstar's moat against clones might be down to branding, lawyers and money. And the way the IP laws are going, lawyers might not be much help. And money might not help either if the clone is made by a behemoth like 10cent or Meta. Maybe Meta wants the Fortnight ecosystem but doesn't want to pay for Epic. Maybe 10cent wants a share of that GTA6 money and tweaks a GTA6 clone for the Asian market.

This is one of the points he is making. It might not be legal, but it is certainly allowed with precedents being set in courts and policies being turned into law by politicians. He seems quite explicit in stating that what he is doing now with multiple 90s era games will be what happens with this years games next year, and IP protections are getting eroded at such a rate that even the big budget games get cloned with impunity. One of the quotes is about Rockstar's defense being a brand fortress and money.

It doesn't even need to be prison. Just that someone needs to be responsible. If you are using an AI agent and nobody else has taken responsibility, then it is you. So far no individual or group of individuals are responsible for these actions. As it stands nobody is responsible, or 'the company' is responsible, or worse 'the model' is responsible. And if you defer responsibility to a multibillion dollar corp, nothing happens for all practical purposes with legal issues just the cost of doing business and dragged out for decades. All the individuals in a position to be responsible are shielded by the company and money and apparently have no need to worry because they are just following orders. It is hardly surprising AI popularity is so low in English speaking countries using American for-profit AI.

Yes, how can a bot determine that? Humans make a judgement call and take responsibility. And maybe a judge makes a judgement if it was a crime or a mistake.

It seems pretty fundamental concept in most modern civilizations. Pick pocketing and purse snatching is illegal despite the property being publicly accessible. We do need reliable courts to determine intent.

Brilliant move by the Australian Government to combine the algorithm opt-out with other restrictions. All the headlines are just about opt-out, and the assumption is the US is complaining about opt-out and claiming it is censorship. I suspect the actual claim of censorship is about putting the "onus on platforms to stop harmful content, such as illegal pornography and videos promoting disordered eating, from being shared" (from another BBC article, and similar in AU news sources). I expect manosphere stuff and maybe Nazi will end up in there too, or added later once laws are in place.

Messaging over here does not ignore that. A big chunk in Australia is about stopping exports of oil and coal, or at the very least taxing the exports more and making it more expensive. You might have to listen to people and organizations actually concerned though, rather than politicians intent on doing the bare minimum to capture the climate vote.

This is about getting the planner to more effectively use your 'proper indexes', concerned with the edge cases where it currently does not.

Locked up and waiting for signals to release doesn't do much good.