It doesn't have to be 'ride it till it dies' or 'sell everything'. The AI bubble is almost exclusively contained to the US stock market and a few east Asian manufacturers.
You're right that selling everything and 'going to cash' would be a mistake, but diversifying away from US large cap growth absolutely wouldn't. I'm 60/40 stocks/bonds. My stocks and bonds are 50/50 us/intl. ~ 10% of my us portfolio is small cap value.
What's funny to me is that nobody learns from the past. This is far from the first tech bubble we've had even before the .com crash (canals, railroads, radio...). The answer, every time was diversification.
The east Asian semiconductor manufacturers are selling shovels in the gold rush and being very cautious about expansion given how capital-intensive the whole sector is. It's hard to come up with a scenario where they outright lose, even with the bubble popping.
I mean there's also a cost to not expanding too, in that you're leaving money on the table. I doubt they've really been able to resist the siren call of basically being able to print more money, but if the AI bubble collapses and they're left selling most of their production to consumers, they're gonna have a lot of stranded capital. Here's hoping they're smart enough to build a big war chest to weather the storm, but in my experience, companies rarely do.
I am no big fan of MS, and especially not a fan of W11, but you're operating under the false assumption that their users are still their most important customers.
MS's bottom line doesn't depend on how happy users are with W11, especially not power users like ourselves. W11 is just a means of selling subscriptions (office, ai, etc). The question isn't 'are users happy' it's 'will OEMs and business continue to push it?'. The answer to that is almost certainly yes. OEMs aren't going to be selling most pcs with ubuntu included any time soon. Businesses are not going to support libreoffice when MS office is the established standard.
Maybe apple could make inroads here, but they don't seem willing to give up their profit margins on overpriced hardware, and I don't think I've ever seen them release anything 'office' related that was anywhere near feature parity with MSO, and especially not cross platform.
If their whole business is based around being an established standard and making users happy is not a relevant goal, then why do anything at all? They already are an established standard, so why would they bother taking any further actions whatsoever, making any changes or rolling out any new products? Clearly they are trying to achieve something, right? So what is it?
It is about making specific high value users happy. If the rest of us are unhappy - we don't matter. They know for most people ubuntu or whatever isn't a realistic option and so they can take whatever money they can get from those people. Sure a few people like me will run *BSD or linux, but we are a footnote not worth their time.
The only danger is every once in a while one of those little footnotes becomes large enough to be a problem and you lose the market of those who do matter as well. While there are many obvious examples of where that happened, there are also a lot of cases where it didn't.
>I find funny the remarks of "PC gaming" is growing
If anything, with current prices, it's dying. I don't say this as a 'pc v console' flame. I'm saying that if you want your hobby to be widespread, sustainable and growing it needs to be accessible to a broke highschooler. PC gaming might be affordable to us tech workers, but it isn't to them, and that's a problem. Hell even console gaming has become very expensive in the last couple years. A ps5 is $500, which is reasonable for what you get, but the $70 games and $80 / yr PSN sub adds up.
>the reason those consoles are so iconic is because we were children.
If that were the case, we would only really love the games we grew up with. I stayed at an air bnb that had a ps2. I sat down and played ace air combat; a game I'd never touched on a console I'd never had as a child, and I had a blast.
I also recently picked up fallout 1/2 for a couple bucks on steam, and while the controls and graphics weren't great, I still enjoyed the game even though I never touched it in childhood.
Realistically, there are a few games for the xbox / ps2 era where the graphics really have not aged well, but for the most part I am not a pixel snob, at all.
> If that were the case, we would only really love the games we grew up with.
I’m not sure that’s true? Like, perhaps the preference might generalize from the several games one did play as a child to other games which are similar to the ones one played as a child, with the preference still being a result of which games one played as a child.
Sure, I didn’t say all old games are bad, we just have to be aware of nostalgia as a factor. It’s difficult for a game to match the ocarina of time for me, because I had simply never experienced something like that. As an adult I recognize that it is a good game, but also that someone who wasn’t there at the time isn’t going to see what I see in it.
I mean, just like with a Tesla, the driver is responsible for the actions taken by the car, which means you do need to be paying attention, hands on the wheel, ready to take over at all times.
We don't yet have the legal framework to say 'Sue company x, it wasn't my fault!' You get sued, then you have a very uphill battle to turn around and try to sue the company that provided the 'self driving' functionality because companies put all sorts of 'I totally accept liability for using this' in the T&C of their products.
Pressing the lane assistant button on a Mercedes steering wheel and getting a “you’ll need to activate your subscription first” message really drove up my blood pressure.
In this case, they bought and currently own the sensors and hardware that the ML model is stored on. Moreover, the software runs locally.
It's a silly example, but you can think of it as buying a house and the ceiling lights requiring a subscription to turn on.
As an aside, I wonder how long this can keep up before it begins affecting laws around theft and property damage if the person operating, storing, insuring, and maintaining the physical objects don't contractually own them. Is Mercedes a victim if the LKAS camera gets damaged or stolen, rather than you?
I mean they surely knew this before they bought their car and bought it anyway. So I don't get the complaint
Are you sure they bought the ML Models?
The Hardware is inside because it's required for the emergency lane keeping, but I wouldn't be surprised if the OEMs would have a deal with the supplier where they are paid more if this feature gets enabled
CDs were around $16 in 2000, which is equivalent to around $30 today, which is around 2.3 times what a Spotify premium subscription costs for one person.
Equivalently, a Spotify premium subscription in 2000 would be a little under $7.
I guarantee that if you asked young adults in 2000 if they would be interested in a subscription that lets them listen to nearly everything available on CD, at any time, as often as they wished, for $7/month they would have been ecstatic.
Same for DVDs, which were typically in the $20-25 range for new releases in 2000. They would not have been quite as happy as they would have been with Spotify because of the way video is split among several streaming services, but it would still be seen as a tremendous improvement.
My Comma 4 arrives today, and I think it will be great (using it with my Lightning, not my Model 3), but I think it is just a temporary solution that is effectively a dead man walking. The latest cars are not usable with a Comma and likely will never be, with manufacturers locking down the CANBUS with encryption.
Literal anticompetitive behavior in the name of safety. The more of them that move to subscription services the better the chance the scheme gets legally challenged I figure.
As a company yeah they probably won't survive in the long term. But since the software is open source forks like SunnyPilot should remain updated for existing owners and such. People will likely even make DIY comma hardware devices too if the company stops selling them.
Although even if the devices stop getting updates, that makes them on par with most built in car software and lane assist stuff which never gets updated in the car's life anyway.
My car from late 2005 to early 2025, a 2006 Honda CR-V, only has regular old control. That's now my backup car and my main car is 2025 Hyundai Kona EV with adaptive cruise control.
I too thought it would be nice on long drives, but really it hasn't made that much difference. Like everyone I speed on the freeway, but not as much as everyone else, so it rarely has to actually adapt. :-)
The place I've found it makes a huge difference is stop and go or near stop and go traffic. You can't set it to a speed below 20 mph, but if the car it is following goes below that it keeps working all the way down to 0 mph. (You don't have to be going 20 mph to set it. You can set it if you are going above something like 3 or 4 mph, or if you are stopped and there is a stopped car ahead of and it thinks you are on a street. It just sets the speed to 20 mph when you set it under those circumstances).
If the car ahead starts moving again within a few seconds it will automatically follow. If longer it will beep once when the car ahead starts moving and show a message about the lead car leaving. Tapping the accelerator or flicking the cruise control speed adjust switch on the steering wheel will resume following.
Not all adaptive cruise control systems work all the way down to 0 mph. Some cut off well above that. Some only work down to 0 mph on higher trims.
Making sure I get one that does is now on my "must have" requirements for any future car.
I genuinely don't understand what role lane centering serves if you really do keep your hands on the wheel and eyes on the road. It doesn't steer the car if you're steering the car yourself, not when I drove cars that had it. What am I missing?
The only point of cruise control is to take your foot off the peddle and to zone out and stop paying attention to how fast you're going. This is already Not Great to have in cars, but adding the same to the steering wheel, making drivers feel emboldened to look away, is probably a big part of the reason so many cars on the road today seem like they're being driven by deranged psychopaths; the drivers are actually tuned out doing other shit!
Sorry but the LAST thing I want is people being able to YOLO code onto their cars to drive on public roads.
That was my original main complaint with Tesla and why I distrusted them so much before Elon publicly lost the plot.
Even with Autopilot it was clear to me they were far more willing to force the risks of their systems on all other drivers on the road then the legacy auto makers who were much more cautious about testing things extremely thoroughly first. All those early videos of people climbing in the backs of their cars while they were driving down the highway? To me that was proof they couldn’t be trusted with public safety.
Basic lanekeeping is still free but changed the name to Traffic-Aware Cruise Control with Autosteer due to lawsuits. This article is just more anti-tesla propaganda from democrats who hate that Elon supported Trump.
>Any power users who prefer their own key management should follow the steps to enable Bitlocker without uploading keys to a connected Microsoft account.
I have W11 w a local account and no bitlocker on my desktop computer, but the sheer amount of nonsense MS has been doing these days has really made me question if 'easy modding*' is really enough of a benefit for me to not just nuke it and install linux yet again
* You can get the MO2 mod manager running under linux, but it's a pain, much like you can also supposedly run executable mods (downgraders, engine patches, etc) in the game's context, but again, pain
Ok, sounds like normal 'creative destruction' to me. Time to raze useless office space and build housing in it's place.
Also, I don't get how companies can make such a big song and dance about their climate commitments on the one hand while simultaneously insisting on RTO on the other. The greenest commute is one that never happens. If the tax code needs to change to give companies credit for their employees cutting out their commute, so be it.
Replacing unused office space with dense multifamily housing would benefit the climate long term as city dwellers have a much lower carbon footprint. Not to mention that they've gotten good enough building with engineered timber that they can safely build midrises with the stuff. No need for concrete.
but by demolishing you're releasing and generating a ton of embodied carbon for a likely relative limited output of residential homes on the other side (because the economics doesn't stack up). I'd contend that the trade off is as simple as you're suggesting.
Razing buildings generates no more carbon than what is required by the machinery to demolish it and cart off the debris. I'm starting to question whether you're speaking in good faith
Not sure where you questioning good faith comes from but do you. You're generating more carbon because you're then building more stuff where you've razed. It's a pretty recognised trade off why just mass demolishing stuff isn't the most effective thing to do.
>at some point that it's more expensive to convert these into residential buildings than it is to literally demolish and rebuild.
Yep, and that's fine. It's literally a tangible instance of 'creative destruction'. I see people arguing that oh, we have to RTO to save the current model and it seems so backwards to me.
>mixed residential/commertial/recreational can be very noisy.
I'd rather live in a somewhat 'noisy' vibrant neighborhood where I can walk to shops or restaurants than an absolutely dead residential cul-de-sac where I have to literally drive miles to the nearest amenity. If the noise bothers you at night, get a sound machine or install triple pane windows.
I understand having industrial separate from everything else, but commercial and residential should always be blended IMHO, and SFH zoning should not exist.
I would kill for reformed zoning standards like they have in Japan.
I liked very much Japan or Buenos Aires. Sure. Just pointing out there are downsides also. Traffic is a mess, and that shows in times for ambulances and firefighters. I like things of both. I guess people should vote by choosing to live where they want
Traffic is a mess in Tokyo? Ambulance response times are typically under 10m in japan, so not sure the relevance there. Also the entire point of living in a dense neighborhood is that one is able to address many of your day to day needs without driving.
>I guess people should vote by choosing to live where they want
I'd have no problem with this if dense, multi-use zoning were common. As it is, very few places in the US are as livable as much of Europe and the more developed parts of Asia.
… So live where you want. I do, and it’s a SFH neighborhood. We don’t all need to live in Kowloon City, just because that’s what you like.
So tired of this strident bullshit (“and SFH zoning should not exist”) from people who can’t seem to figure out other people exist and have thoughts and preferences, too.
I'm just going to copy and paste the end of my last comment since it seems you didn't read it
>I'd have no problem with this if dense, multi-use zoning were common. As it is, very few places in the US are as livable as much of Europe and the more developed parts of Asia.
It's easy to say 'live where you want' when your preferred housing isn't illegal in most of the US.
I'm "just going to copy and paste" your actual statement: "and SFH zoning should not exist"
> It's easy to say 'live where you want' when your preferred housing isn't illegal in most of the US.
And yet, even if we take this obviously bogus statement on it's face, there are still many places you could live if you were more interested in living there and less interested in trying to force me to live there, too. You could even, if this were honest concern, join your local city's planning commission and talk to people who actually understand your local area about it's zoning, though I suppose that takes more effort than shit posting about SFH BAD on social media.
The good news for you is that you can live like this in almost any major city. Those of us that absolutely want to drive places and live in SFH zoned areas can also do that. Win win.
It's quiet, I get a larger piece of land with a yard that I can enjoy, I can have a porch, there are no homeless people accosting me when I sit on my porch, when I go to the grocery store it is clean and doesn't have a homeless encampment outside the front door, and nobody shoplifts from it so nothing is locked up, etc etc. I used to live in Seattle, these are not invented problems.
Yes, Seattle would certainly be much nicer without the homeless people, no argument there. But even if we assume that would reduce the crime rate, I still would prefer my large SFH with a garden and allowing my kids to safely run around the neighborhood unsupervised.
This is not mentioning the gorillion dollars Seattle already spends on homeless help to no avail; asylums are probably the only real solution to that.
You're right that selling everything and 'going to cash' would be a mistake, but diversifying away from US large cap growth absolutely wouldn't. I'm 60/40 stocks/bonds. My stocks and bonds are 50/50 us/intl. ~ 10% of my us portfolio is small cap value.
What's funny to me is that nobody learns from the past. This is far from the first tech bubble we've had even before the .com crash (canals, railroads, radio...). The answer, every time was diversification.
reply