You can launch a new product in one month instead of 12 months. I think this works best for startups where the risk tolerance is high but works less than ideal for companies such Amazon where system failure has high costs
They're here, I made one. Not a toy or vibecoded crap, people got immediate value. Not planning to doxx myself by linking it. This was more than a year ago when models weren't even as good yet. A year later it has thousands of consistent monthly users, and it only keeps growing. It's nothing compared to VC startups but for a solo dev, made in a month? Again, it's not a toy, it offers new functionality that simply didn't exist yet and it improves people's lives. The reality is that there's no chance I would've done it without LLMs.
This is delusional. Are you someone that tends to have your finger on the pulse of every piece of software ever released, as it’s being released, with knowledge about how it’s built?
You’re not.
Nobody is.
Perhaps nobody cares to “convince you” and “win you over”, because…why? Why do we all have to spoon feed this one to you while you kick and scream every step of the way?
Real ones don't exist. Conveniently, nobody that has claimed to have created a functional AI product is willing to "doxx themselves" by linking to their app.
Weirdly, people who have actually created functional one-man products don't seem to have the same problem, as they welcome the business.
The main issue was the content the movie industry produced which looked like a lot like some AI slop. I think the DEI lecturing was another nail in the coffin. Unless that changes and they magically add something new to the cinema experience I think they will keep diving into irrelevance because now everybody can produce AI slop.
Do people even want their culture democratized with just anyone being able to produce high entertainment? The recent popularity of "Harry Potter by Balenciaga (2026)" AI fashion parody retelling shows we might actually be stuck in this cultural rut forever with or without AI help.
Why can’t we have original stories(I.e Sinners, Black Panther, White Lotus) and instead try to make White Snow black or whatever and paint people racist?
I get that people want to make these stories more inclusive but the characters are just too powerful to change them and not expect a backlash.
People prefer new characters or “staying true to the original story/character” instead of lazy remixes.
Or you can create your own remix with AI now. Feed the movie and make the characters as you want. The result may seem a bit weird(i.e like a Snow White being a fat black gay male) for a fan of the movie/character but for you as an activist it will check the marks you are looking for. Just don’t invoke racism if people won’t like your AI slop.
Starfire is an orange alien from Tamarin in the comics and people said she shouldn’t be Black in live action or the green witch in Wicked.
Should Annie also not have been Black in the remake? If we want to stay “true” to the original stories, we have to only have Black characters as freed slaves shucking and jiving singing “zippity do dah”.
There are schools located on US military bases, not just near. That doesn't make them viable targets. You better believe that if an attacker hit a school on a US base, the soldiers wouldn't forgive that so easily.
Well that’s not very smart IMHO. To me they look like human shields. Shame on me as I was blaming Hamas for using residential compounds for military ops but it looks like everyone does it.
I wouldn’t send my kid to a school on military base especially in times of imminent war. I label that gross negligence and even provocation.
The problem is that the soldier parents want their kids to live with them on the base. The alternative is they have their kids live in an orphanage somewhere else until they decide to retire, or soldiers just aren't allowed to have kids at all. Neither is very realistic, so there are schools on bases.
Orphanage ? What about a school 2 miles away from the military installation or in Iran's given case why don't they move their sh** at the edge of the city like the shopping malls do? It may be a bit inconvenient, I get that it's inconvenient but it's far from the orphanage story. Not to mention in case of war...should the kids be kept close to a military base? Military installations within residential areas just beg for civilian casualties. Is as simple as that. If you see a military base near you move out or ask them to move out.
Usually they serve military families, but at least in the United States those kids probably aren't any safer from getting killed in an off-base school given how common school shootings are now.
I don't believe that - in my opinion, the school was deliberately targeted because the students studying there were mostly the children of Iranian military officials. Iran's military (surprisingly) has behaved in a very restrained manner in the last 2 years against Israel (and US), possibly on the advise of Russia and China, and that is why Israel and US have not been able to galvanise much international support for their aggression against Iran. The deliberate assassination of the Ayatollah (a religious muslim leader, who was 87+ years and soon to be replaced by the Iranians themselves) and targeted slaughter of the children of Iranian military officials is meant to provoke Iranians and Shia muslims elsewhere to commit acts of terrorism against the US and Israel. Then international outrage can be whipped up by the western media and NATO can be bulldozed to join the war and send soldiers into Iran.
The children of soldiers are not legitimate military targets.
> ... in my opinion, the school was deliberately targeted because the students studying there were mostly the children of Iranian military officials. ...
Your opinion is wrong. There is no possibility of that being the justification for choosing a target. The American armed forces are too professional to do such a thing. Terror is not in our toolbox.
Americans and Europeans are in general, good people. But their political leaders, not so much. And this war is being run by a genocidal regime in Israel and the Trump administration. Moral values are the least of their concern ... (Also, I suspect the Israel regime of being the brains behind this attack. Hegeseth, the current Secretary of "war" is also a known muslim-hater, who wouldn't have been hard to persuade.).
In this case they were using very expensive munitions which go exactly where they were targeted to go; they were not using cheap, dump bombs which have a wide margin of error.
It’s not only about the precision of the munition. When you put military installations in residential areas you get this kind of result regardless of how precise the weapons are.
The maps could be outdated, intelligence may be flawed etc. In a hot war collateral casualties are secondary to the military objective. You try to avoid civilian deaths but that should be on best effort basis.
This is the right direction. Another important bit I think it’s the GC integration. Many languages such Go, C# don’t do well on wasm due the GC. They have to ship a GC as well due the lack of various GC features(I.e interior pointers)
That's an orthogonal problem. First it needs to be possible and straightforward to write GCed languages in the sandbox. Second, GCed languages need to be willing to fit with the web/WASM GC model, which may not exactly match their own GC and which won't use their own GC. And after that, languages with runtimes could start trying to figure out how they might reduce the overhead of having a runtime.
I think it'd be supported by them the moment they ship it. Whether others will be excited to use it is an open question. There's no central registry of "languages supported for WebAssembly", by design; it supports any language that can compile to standards-compliant WebAssembly.
WasmGC doesn't support interior pointers, and is quite primitive in available set of operations, this is quite relevant if you care about performance, as it would be a regression in many languages, hence why it has largely been ignored, other than the runtimes that were part of the announcement.
In java land the fact that you effectively don't have pointers but rather everything is an object reference, this ends up not being an issue.
I wonder if the WASM limitation is related to the fact that JavaScript has pretty similar semantics with no real concept of a "pointer". It means to get that interior pointer, you'd need to also introduce that concept into the GC of browsers which might be a bit harder since it'd only be for WASM.
Object references are pointers. WasmGC only supports pointers which point to the start of an object. However, some languages have features which require pointers that point inside of an object while still keeping that object alive.
Limiting WASM to what is capable in JavaScript is quite a silly thing to do. But at the same time there are vastly different GC requirements between runtimes so it's a challenging issue. Interior pointers is only one issue!
I know this is pedantic, but they aren't. At least not in the sense of what it means for something to be a pointer.
Object references are an identifier of an object and not a memory pointer. The runtime takes those object references and converts them into actual memory addresses. It has to do that because the position of the object in memory (potentially) changes every time a GC runs.
This does present it's own problems. Different runtimes make different choices around this. Go and python do not move objects in memory. As a result, it's a lot easier for them to support interior and regular pointers being actual pointers. But that also means they are slower to allocate, free, and they have memory fragmentation issues.
I'm not sure about C# (the only other language I saw with interior pointers). I think C# semi-recently switched over to a moving collector. In which case, I'm curious to know how they solved the interior pointer problem.
> I'm not sure about C# (the only other language I saw with interior pointers). I think C# semi-recently switched over to a moving collector. In which case, I'm curious to know how they solved the interior pointer problem.
Objects references are just pointers in .NET. See the JIT disassembly below. It's been using a moving GC for a long time, too.
Interesting. I wonder how C# handles the moving. I'm guessing it has to go in and fix up the pointers in the stack after a gc run? Or is this some OS level virtual pointer weirdness going on? How does C# guard against someone doing something silly like turning a pointer into a long and then back into a pointer again later?
The runtime knows exactly where GC pointers are so I would assume that is what it does. It even knows precisely when locals are no longer needed so it can stop treating objects they refer to as reachable. It's instruction level, not based on scopes, so an object can be freed while it is still in scope if the code doesn't access it!
> How does C# guard against someone doing something silly like turning a pointer into a long and then back into a pointer again later?
I don't think it does. You can't do most of these things without using unsafe code, which needs a compiler flag enabled and code regions marked as `unsafe`.
Why would you buy the old gen GPUs instead to commit to buy the newest and best GPU available in 2 years? anyone knows that electronics depreciate fast. Unless they get them at discount this is really stupid. It’s like buying the best TV or iPhone at full price and keep it in storage for 2+ years.
Well by the time the become obsolete you can run that computing on a Mac with no special cooling so I really doubt they will be of any use. Maybe in some parts of the world where electricity is cheap. If someone wants to really find out perhaps watching the crypto ASICs stories could help.
On the contrary, Netflix would have been decent because WB is bigger than them (in terms of IP, existing content, brands, etc) and would have probably (at least that's what they said publicly) left it mostly alone. And it's weird how people assume that just because Netflix produce a ton of content, all of it is low quality. A lot of it is for people half paying attention, but there is plenty of actually good stuff. Them having WB would improve them on both fronts.
Nepo baby is coming with a political angle and wants control of the news media part of WB. The American media landscape is already without much competition nor diversity in political views, now there would practically be none.
The good Netflix movies are small diamonds in a swamp of garbage. Most of the content is the equivalent of fast food for movies with a political agenda.
WB has not been immune to the political angle but they at least care about their IP and produce decent content.
Of course Netflix would have used WB IP and Netflix’s “state of the art” movie making machine to maximise the value of the WB IP.
TBH I don’t care about the WB news media part through I’m not sure if they will really destroy it just to align with their political views. If they make CNN like Fox News the viewers will just leave.
The right move for Netflix from a shareholder’s perspective would be to get into the short drama movies that are popular in China and recently the US too. That would allow them to cover the whole garbage media spectrum and make a lot of money.
> The good Netflix movies are small diamonds in a swamp of garbage. Most of the content is the equivalent of fast food for movies with a political agenda.
What political agenda? Are gays existing in movies political for you or what do you mean?
And again, Netflix have to play a numbers game. They need to have enough content for people not to leave them. That doesn't mean they don't also have genuine quality content like Better Call Saul, Peaky Blinders, Kaleidoscope, etc.
> TBH I don’t care about the WB news media part through I’m not sure if they will really destroy it just to align with their political views
They already started, appointing a political hack to be head of CBS, and CBS have already quickly turned very politically biased. Why wouldn't they do the same to CNN?
It was good, actually, that she suppressed accurate news unfavorable to the current President, tanking ratings and the network's credibility. I want more news outlets to decline. Except of course, my favorite, which doesn't count. It says it's fair and balanced; they wouldn't lie, would they?
Why people buy the Studio with the high ram config is actually the unified memory. This is unique to Apple. I'm not sure what Mac Pro would do with PCIe cards . It would be useless for AI because what you want is unified memory that can be used by the GPU/AI not just ram.
Its not entirely unique to Apple: the Ryzen AI Max platform (in the e.g. Framework Desktop) is a unified memory platform. The PlayStation 5 also has a unified memory architecture (which given the chiplet was made by AMD, not too surprising) (people sleep on PlayStation hardware engineering; they're far better at skating to where the puck is headed than most hardware tech companies. remember Cell?)
> I'm not sure what Mac Pro would do with PCIe cards .
Video and Audio Engineers [1] would like to have a word. Not to mention PCIe Network Card. And they do use all the slot in the Cheese Gater although I believe a modern version could have cut those in half.
PCIe cards would indeed be useless for AI unless Apple supports third-party GPUs, but there are certainly some pro creators that would still prefer to have them. I myself work in large-template film/game scoring and while we all love our Mac Studios, they're usually housed in a Sonnet chassis so that we can continue to use PCIe cards. Had Apple kept them in parity with the Studio w/r/t CPU and RAM, the rack-mount version of the Pro would've been a no-brainer.
reply