> What does the US benefit from this new policy?

This really makes me feel like a conspiracy theorist, but it doesn't seem as far from reality as it should...

If there's no response: exhibiting total dominance of the region and being able to make up whatever unverifiable statistics they want re: domestic safety (drugs, gangs, etc).

If there is a response: potential for armed conflict which could become a pretense for interning more citizens with hispanic heritage, similar to what was done to Japanese Americans in the 1940s.

Depends.

If you're a restaurateur, do you have the .ai files your agency created, an Adobe Illustrator license, and know-how to get in there and change the prices? And then know where/how to deliver the result to get it printed? If so, you probably still have something better to do...

You probably pay an agency an hourly rate plus markup to get them updated, prepped and sent off to be reprinted.

Next time: negotiate fixed prices/timelines for small updates, own the files, and own the relationship with the printers.

While Google has their own chips, they don't really have the market power there to buy up bleeding-edge manufacturing capacity.

Apple on the other hand... (though they're behind in other regards)

But they were just an example. They are many players arising. You can look at this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45746246 even <https://www.nextsilicon.com/> is not on that list.

I don't see a natural monopoly anymore.

> The safest investment you can make in this AI race is Alphabet.

From the technical/talent/funding side, I agree with you. With Alphabet, the real risk is that they lose interest/focus and kill (or pivot) products early. I don't really see that happening in the short term (considering the hype/investments/cash around AI) but maybe in the medium to long term if things start to get stale.

Even with that risk though, I agree with you.

The chances of Alphabet losing interest in AI are vanishingly small. Google (pre-Alphabet remaming) was the AI company before AI companies were called that.

> Google (pre-Alphabet renaming) was the AI company before AI companies were called that.

I disagree. They're an advertising/attention company.

The jury's still out on whether their AI offerings will compliment their existing business or will cannibalize it. And in the case that it cannibalizes the advertising business, will they undermine/kneecap it to protect that cash cow?

It's been a while since they've been the "don't be evil" and "organizing the world's information"-mission Google.

A company can be multiple things. Just like Apple is a Phone, Tablet, & General Computing Company

Agreed, but there's no denying that selling advertising is Google/Alphabet's primary business. And it's not even close.

They didn’t lose interest in messaging when they cycled through half a dozen different apps but the problem was they were building products they wanted to exist rather than what users wanted. I’d worry about AI getting similar churn if PMs make their name by launching a new product rather than improving an existing one.

That makes sense framing it as a skepticism about Google Gemini (a single product) rather than their interest in a category (AI).

I'm less worried about them genuinely losing interest then Google outlasting their AI competition and then kneecapping their AI product to protect their cash cow.

The root comment was investor-centric, i.e. if you want to divert some investment towards AI, Alphabet is a smart bet.

Investors got great returns as Google churned messaging platforms, and this will likely be the case ad Google churns through AI products, or even entire architectures.

We did get good returns but that was because other units did very well. It’s not a given but still too likely that they’d botch AI products but still be profitable due to ad sales continuing to grow. I do think AI has better than average chances, though, because it seems to have scared their senior management enough to do their jobs: from outside, everything appears to radiate “this can’t fail” in a way they haven’t had since the 2000s.

Universal Basic Trickle-Down Economics

Even if it's just better for some things people use search for, that's very valuable.

People are spending real money on the product, it's not just the companies spending on infrastructure.

Are they spending enough money on the product for these companies to be profitable, after R&D costs are factored?

For most people it is just a search engine that allows them to avoid webpages that have turned hostile. The second biggest users are probably students who want their homework done for them.

So yes there is a market but that doesn't match the level of investment. A bubble doesn't mean the product is useless.

> For most people it is just a search engine that allows them to avoid webpages that have turned hostile

If this is true it means there is a ton of growth available once people understand that it's much more than this.

The vague snarky response is very telling. Some of you clearly have a personal stake at this but if I was you I would start selling those Nvidia stocks.

I wasn't being snarky or pushing stocks.

My point was: many or most people still think "AI" is limited to the summary at the top of Google search results. In Jon Stewart's recent podcast with Geoffrey Hinton he said that he thinks of AI as "polite Google".

So most people haven't tried applying this tech yet.

Also fyi NVDA is 7% of the s&p so if you own the market you own it too. I don't own it directly either.

It's not that people haven't tried AI, it's that there hasn't been many compelling products. Most are the software equivalent of knick knacks.

I second this recommendation!

I joined later than you: May 2013. If it really was 2012 when Google Reader blew up, I can't remember what I used before finding Feedbin. Maybe Feedly, maybe something else that came and went or maybe even a local reader...

For Android users, I recommend "Capy Reader" as a client.

Correction, Google announced shutting down Reader in 2013. IIRC Feedbin was created at the same time in response to that. So we were both likely among the first users.

Just like that, but offer a timeframe for a response. That is what builds trust and confidence.

You can also offer a "back of a napkin" answer if it's appropriate, but make it clear that you will give it the proper consideration and give a better considered answer. Maybe specify a large margin of error.

All that said, not everything requires rigor. In some cases, "fuzzy" answers are good enough. Learn to identify them and not to waste time giving less important things extra attention.

> The side bar, such as on Finder, just kind of floats there. That is fine and looks kind of neat on the Maps app as you can see some of the maps behind it, but on the Finder it is just a white bubble over top of a white background, which... is a choice.

Agreed. All of the transparency and liquid glass effects look terrible when they're displayed over a solid color, especially white. That said, they look good over top of something colorful and really AMAZING when displayed over something that's moving (video, whatever).

I imagine that the effect REALLY takes off on a display where EVERYTHING is moving, like on top of the real world on a VisionOS display. It's just out of place on MacOS when uses as a dev workstation.

What you describe in the first paragraph isn't 1FA. There's still two factors—its just on one device.

You're conflating "factors" and devices.