• 0 Posts
  • 135 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 1st, 2023

help-circle
  • Nvidia is worth 42bn USD and employs 30,000 people.

    Nvidia’s has a market cap 30x of Intel’s. So it could issue more stock to raise capital for a buyout. It’s not the company equity but the market cap that it needs to have money to purchase. Even a controlling stake of > 50% would give them defacto control. Of course governments & regulators would probably block it or force Nvidia to divest bits of itself, and that’s probably the greatest protection Intel has against such a scenario.

    But if Intel weakens further, it may well be someone else tries to acquire it. I bet a lot of companies would love to snaffle it up. It’s kind of ironic that Intel used to be the big dog in the semiconductor space but even AMD is bigger than it these days and are potentially many others who’d like buy it out. In fact, for all we know Intel might be shedding all these jobs to make it look more attractive to potential buyers.




  • arc@lemm.eetoPolitical Memes@lemmy.worldBoth sides!
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    So in my mind extremism is bad either way you go and it is not something that anyone should brush off and say “these left wing extremists are fine” because reality never works out that way. Extremism is monstrous either way.

    I suspect “true” Communism is something you’ll only find on the pages of a book. Because in reality it goes from being a revolution, to a party, to cliques, to a power struggle, to a purge, to a dictator. And people get shot, tortured, beaten and sent to death camps every step of the way.


  • arc@lemm.eetoPolitical Memes@lemmy.worldBoth sides!
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    The point I’m making, which I think is obvious and demonstrable, is extreme left aren’t just do-gooders while the extreme right are evil. It’s hard to think of any communist / marxist-leninist / whatever revolutions that weren’t followed by purges, gulags, education camps, progroms or what have you. In some cases, the body count was in the millions, e.g. Pol Pot.

    So in my mind extremism is bad either way you go and it is not something that anyone should brush off and say “these left wing extremists are fine” because reality never works out that way. Extremism is monstrous either way.



  • Russia has messaging for useful idiots on the right and messaging for useful idiots on the left. To the right they’ll say stuff like “America should stay out of foreign wars”, “we should make Ukraine pay for the assistance”, “the price of oil will go up” blah blah. To the left it’s shit like “Ukraine are Nazis”, “America is perpetuating this war”, “NATO are the aggressors” blah blah

    The goal either way is to sow division, doubt, demoralise, create instability, create distrust and sap European & US power’s resolve to support Ukraine. And also to devalue information with false, misleading and contradictory information. It’s not hard on social media to see how this shit spreads around with insincere actors pumping false news and misinfo into the feeds that gets picked up by the useful idiots.




  • There are other considerations here though. Google suffers reputational harm if users become victims through their platform. It becomes news, it creates distrust in users, it generates friction with regulators and law enforcement. Users may be trained to be ad averse or install ad blockers. In addition, these ads generate reports which costs time to process even if the complaints are rejected.

    At the end of the day these scammers are not high profile advertisers and they’re not valuable. They’re burner accounts that pay cents to deliver their ads. They’re ephemeral, get zapped, reappear and constantly waste time and resources. Given that YouTube can easily transcribe content and watermark it, it makes no sense to me that they wouldn’t put some triggers in, e.g. a new advertiser places an ad that says “Elon Musk”, or “Quantum AI” or other such markers, flag it for review.


  • I’ve disabled personalised ads on YouTube and I see this sort of shit all the time. I’ve given up reporting them because 90% of the time the report is rejected. I don’t even understand the rationale for rejecting it because it’s an obvious a scam as a scam can be - ai impersonation, fake endorsement, illegal advertising category. It’s a scam YouTube.

    I don’t even get why these ads even appear. YouTube has transcription & voice / music recognition capabilities. How hard would it be to flag a suspicious ad and require a human to review it? Or search for duplicates under other burner accounts and zap them at the same time? Or having some kind of randomized audit based on trust where new accounts get reviewed more frequently by experienced reviewers.







  • arc@lemm.eetoTechnology@lemmy.worldRabbit R1 is Just an Android App
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    44
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    I saw the Marquess Brownlee review of this thing last night and I wonder why companies make this crap and who is fool enough to fund it. It’s obviously doomed to fail, as are most “smart” gadgets & devices. The best that can be said for it, is at least there is no subscription to use it and it’s not outrageously expensive but that’s damning it with faint praise.


  • Because they are. Groups like PETA, or Just Stop Oil are clowns who hurt their own cause. Performative protesting might win people a participation prize but to everyone else it’s just “look at meeeeee!”. At a certain point it actually becomes toxic to the cause. I know if I wanted to harm environmental campaigning then I’d invent Just Stop Oil.

    Meanwhile big business are sending lobbiests in to change politician’s minds, to make arguments that appeal to their rationality, or self-interest. THAT is what environmental campaigners should be doing - lobbying, extoling the benefits of environmental action, changing minds. Getting arrested in front of cameras over and over just becomes pathetic and performative.



  • I think climate activists would just be better off doing what everyone else does - lobbying. Identify politicians who represent areas who would benefit from pollution controls, or green investment or whatever and push the message. Performative acts in front of cameras might feel good but it’s a blunt tool to change policy. Some protestors such as “just stop oil” campaigners are so stupid that they actually help the causes they supposedly oppose.