It's a strategic decision and of course it's not financially optimal.

And if in 20 years thered still a few windows computers around in their org that doesn't matter

Back in the days of "smart contracts" and "DAOS" this was something many well-meaning technical people struggeled with. Humans and their societies are flexible and therefore laws must be flexible as well (to a certain degree before it becomes damaging).

It's also why a lawyer/expert is usually recommended when engaged with legal matters: We as layman lack all the context around seemingly "simple" concepts, procedures and definitions. You can learn all of that or hire a professional.

The epic was written around 2000 BCE which was well over >> 10k years after agriculture and more than 4 times that much after neanderthals died out.

It's possible but much more likely that they refer to something more contemporary. There are always "wild men" around no matter who you ask.

And given the past few decades there is no reason to not try to do that.

For comparison 21.9% were BEVs, 11.5% Plugin hybrids, ~51% pure petrol or non plug-in hybrid, and 14.8% Diesel.

[0] https://www.kba.de/DE/Presse/Pressemitteilungen/Fahrzeugzula...

I would love to try it however they would have to solve "global song availability" and "Sponsored songs only Stations".

But if they did try there is the chance of some niche communities forming.

It wouldn't even need to be live to begin with. A narrated playlist with a DJ and basic control functionality such as fading into songs or a voice over.

Not trivial but doable and I wonder why they never tried that.

No need to brag about that.

At one point Jensen Huang will be out (retired or forced by staginating sales) and can definitely look back on a very successful career. That much is certain.

What I'm uncertain about is how much the ability of Google to set defaults matters.

Setting Gemini as the "AI" on phones, automatically integrated with all "daily" services could matter a lot. They have a platform ready to go and are pushing hard to make themselves really attractive. All while being very profitable.

Apple on the other hand will be in a strong position to negotiate a good deal with competitors to OAI and my suspicion is that "good enough AI" is all most people need.

And of course there is the financial reality that OpenAI does not only need profits, but profits on an enormous scale. Just being successful would mean they missed the mark.

My personal guess is that Microsoft will fully buy them at some point in the future but I'm not, confidence enough to bet any money on it.

It pushes money into the market, creates skills and business and, crucially can look beyond quarterly profits (for better or worse).

For example commercial 3D printing (using FDM) was likely significantly stalled until the relevant patent expired.

Culture is of course important but there can always be new successful Alternatives.

It's usually reported (briefly) in the local news.

If I recall correctly some of the goals of this are

- to relieve the load on the custom s enforcement agencies by motivating sellers to import and declare goods in bulk.

- to make sure there is someone domestic who is legally responsible for liabilities and other regulations (e.g. for waste and EC compliance). It's easier to force a big company to do something than a 2 person shop in China. There are already laws in the book where the marketplace becomes liable if the actual seller cannot be found.

I believe AliExpress bulk imports much of its wares to EU warehouses already (at least popular stuff). It's not possible for everything but for popular items it's happening more and more frequently.

If they want to do that then, as every corporate "open source", they are free to do so but why not communicate that at least in the release post?

Any potential free user who would consider going paid will now be starting off their relationship negatively.

Really weird strategy.

I guess "the regulations will continue until product management improves".

The much greater challenge faced by Disney and Co is making "killer cyborgs" child save and cost effective.

Take a look at industrial cobots (not a typo). They feature rounded corners, have very little to no "finger pinchy areas" and lots of force feedback sensors.

Despite that they still require trained (adult) personal and move very slowly when actually interacting with humans.

That's the price for them being sturdy and precise.

The character shape lends itself to a low center of gravity but the fluidity of the motion implies light weight or strong motors.

An angsty kid giving Olaf a good shove or kick could be expensive and fast moving robotics are either dangerous or brittle