Did I suggest that? I'm pointing out the blaring hypocrisy of a company sitting on $350M in cash that opted to double the size of their company without having a clear strategy to become profitable. Then after laying off half the company, the CEO publicly states it's because the laid off workers don't have the skills they need for "the new era". I would really like to see in these scenarios the CEO accept a tiny bit of responsibility for their failures to set strategy and over hire, instead of publicly shaming 70 people they chose to hire in the first place. That's a failure in leadership, not in employees.
It’s better for startup investors if it goes big or fails sooner. That’s the entire purpose of investing 100’s of millions into these companies.
If the CEO has no idea how to do that they should shut down the company or stand aside and find a better CEO, not try and milk as much money from they can by keeping the company shambling along as long as possible.
There's an autonomous flight termination system which triggers if it strays outside the planned flight corridor; any debris that survives reentry should then land in the advertised safety zone.
If it doesn't explode it might be light enough to survive reentry, after sailing on for a short while. In that case a large chunk of metal will come down either off the coast of South Africa or if continues on in its orbit potentially off the coast of Australia.
[1] has the planned flight path, as well as the impact zones.
the onboard control system and flight termination system are programmed to explode if it deviates from a specific and allowed path of trajectory/speed/functional engine thrust. The last thing anyone wants is a partially broken starship going into an uncontrolled suborbital velocity that lands on a city in Africa.
They have a bunch of explosives strapped on the rocket and can give a radio command to blow the ship up. It can even decide to explode itself if the readings go haywire.
It is called the Flight Termination System and it is very common on non-manned flights now.
It could be noted that manually operated flight termination systems have been used even on manned spaceflight, each and every space shuttle flight had a termination system under human ground control.
I'd call that luck. Wait until a bad or stupid actor gets to power. This is the main problem with communism. It all depends on one single person and how they are.
I'll grant that communism makes it easy for a single person to have all the power, but "one single person in power can ruin everything" is not exactly unique to communism, and I am unconvinced that it explains why communist nations tend to stay poor.
Happens everywhere, but the way power in communism works makes bad stuff happen many times faster. In democracy there is a long time until a bad actor can do real damage. There are policies and various mechanisms that prevent that(to a point). Even bureaucracy works to some extent.
It's cynical and wrong. What he (seems to be) saying is that it's fine to violate the legal rights of other people if they don't have a large legal department, and you do. It's blindingly obvious that's wrong.
"Everyone in the business" - you mean, the AI training business? Paraphrasing a famous call-girl, "They would say that, wouldn't they?"
>"Everyone in the business" - you mean, the AI training business?
This isn't even limited to tech. Rich people at worst settle with money to break the law, and at best completely get off scot free doing things that would put much pettier offenders behind bars. I steal some bread from a store and go to jail. Some rich dude commits millions in fraud and cover up and still runs for president.
Do Mistral and xAI get to freely scrape the output of Microsoft ChatGPT? I for one, think either answer to this question will turn out bad, for all of them.
Drowning out creativity on the internet with remixed word salad will only be profitable for a short while. After which, people will start looking for human-created stuff, and avoid ai as much as possible. And slowly, it will become possible. Just like adblockers slowly advance.
People may think they want non-AI stuff, but they just want things created with intention. AI is just a tool, and the very best creators will leverage it to take art to a new level.
Well this new level doesn't seem to be here yet, so I'll believe it when I see it. Crypto also "will change the world", except it didn't, for all the confidence of its supporters. Claims about great things in the future are a dime a million.
I'm pretty sure you've seen it many times and not realized, because the creator took care to build upon what the AI produced, giving it polish and a human touch, then didn't advertise it as "AI"
Funny that you mention "accessible"... Because most of these components are anything but.
Modern HTML and CSS are awesome tools on their own, and are able to do so much without needing to rely on massive JavaScript bundles, but you still end up with component libraries that are <div><div><div><div> all the way down.
I think for an average landing page / small shop it's perfectly fine. They can go online faster with tools like this.
For more complex projects you'd tweak the components of course but it helps a lot that you can see the whole blocks rendered in advance and can prototype way faster this way.
Honestly the bloat and ergonomics of heavily customizable generic component libraries aren't great. Copy and pasting a simple component to make the specific customizations you want helps reduce JS ecosystem churn and dependency pain. Popularity of libraries like shadcn/ui [1] are good acknowledgements of that.
Webdev has always been a focus point for the industry's love of commoditization, unfortunately.
What these libraries don't do is confer any design sense. You still have to know how to put the components together well, which means you'll spend way more time than expected adjusting sizing, spacing, and thinking about responsive design.
