Not as a general rule, no. Not at all.

Businesses make profit selling to customers. Large customers typically give less profit as they negotiate cheaper contracts, at the benefit of being a reliable buyer. Investing the profit back into them makes little sense.

Do you see farmers invest in the supermarket chains that buy their produce? Mining companies investing in Chinese ore smelters? Battery producers investing in major electronics companies? Pottery companies invest in garden center chains?

Its really quite uncommon for companies to directly invest in their large customers.

Whats seen more typically is the reverse: big customers investing in their major suppliers, often to negotiate better pricing agreements or to guarantee supply contracts for their critical supply chain items.

The AI ouroborous is a very artificial industry structure - its just a bottomless moneypit that's doing its best to hide that fact as long as possible, "come 2030 it'll be ultra profitable bro, trust. In the meantime we'll need the GDP of a large nation every year ty'.

You're completely right. I wrote this pretty late at night.

I'll leave it though, so that your comment can add context.

It will also position the AI as a wise mentor to millions of kids, which is terrible when you consider its owned by billionaire sociopaths. They will use this trust.

So, they made a new chemical to make tyrea last a bit longer. But, whoopsie.. It kills these extremely environmentally-important fish, this is confirmed fact. Also, there's no way to avoid it getting into water streams if it remains in tyre formulations.

Solution 1: ban the fucking chemical and go back to prior situation.

World, apparently: no, that's ridiculous. Instead, we'll just do studies to see what people might pay for a tyre without this chemical, while we cross our fingers and hope someone makes a new chemical that's not toxic... But keep using the poison one in the meantime.

Thank you for this important piece of art.

If you read the article, you'd see..

What the GPL changes is the commercial benefit. Under MIT, someone can take Asahi's code, close it up, and sell a product, and that's perfectly legal as long as the notice stays in.

Under the GPL, anyone who distributes a modified version has to release the source under the same license. You can't legally build a closed, paid Apple Silicon distro on top of GPL code. And if a product's source has to be public, the copying is easier to spot.

The article explains that the GPL license will enable legal action against future use along those lines - and that WINE did the same thing back in the 90s, and its worked for them.

Well I was kinda wondering what the difference is tbh. Laxative is laxative, surely.

Sometimes, you just gotta have a dream.

When your neck starts hurting from staring at one of them off to the left or right for too long.

Then you go back to one screen.

A cycle as old as the 90s.

It's wild to me as a non-American that you still have places named after these people and statues in their honor.

There are no statues of Nazi generals in Germany, nor places that celebrate leading members of the Reich.

Kinda.

Cyber attacks have been a commodity on the dark web since long before genAI whether that be paying for access to ready to use hacking toolkits utilizing zero-day exploits or buying access to botnets for DDoSing a target of choice.

There's no doubt that genAI has enabled additional cyber attacks - but it's also enabled bug-fixing and cyber protection, it's mostly a wash.

EA did something good?

And all of the 90s artists agreed to relicense the Road Rash soundtrack music??

I like this feeling, and I can't wait to try the Road Rash remaster.