fonix232

You know wrong.

Even in the early days (97-01), they've used venture funding (approx $80mil) for the DVD mailing business.

And the reason they didn't really go the VC funding way later is because they had an IPO in 2002, which meant instead of relying on VC funds, they took on massive amounts of debt to allow the takeoff of streaming.

Nah, it worked pretty well. Streaming was just more convenient, and came too soon after VOD became widely available.

VOD was a thing before streaming tho

No, that's the evolution of venture capitalism.

Step 1: groundbreaking service comes in that fills a market hole

Step 2: people flock to service

Step 3: service gets VC funding to continue operations, subsidising the users

Step 4: service gets "copied", competitors crop up, use VC funding to eke out their own marketshare while making things worse for everyone but themselves

Step 5: expansion plateaus as interest in service generalises (basically, everyone who could be interested, is already using it)

Step 6: VC funding depletes, company has to start making a profit - leading to price hikes, which is followed by other players in the market as that's how capitalism works

Step 7: price hikes not being enough, service tries to capitalise on their userbase (think restricting features to a higher paid tier, introducing new tiers that strip away features, introducing ads, etc.)

Step 8: market is saturated with plateaud services, user movement is minimal, and everybody hates it because it's expensive, and reintroduced the same problem the initial innovative service meant to fix.

Yep, that position is either kept open for a specific candidate (probably already working at the company), or it's only there for legal requirements...

Thrussy? Put in.

$10 says it's a "repurposed" sex hot and it would've taken a whopping week for a more techy student to hack it and say profanities or something similar...

Funny thing is that we have multiple examples of these AI fine-tunes backfiring spectacularly.

For example all the Grok fails on Xitter, and Elon promising to fix those results constantly, without any of those sticking.

I think the bigger problem is that there's a segment of the population that's gotten so dependent on "AI" (LLM chatbots), they literally can't learn without it. Even the most mundane things they could've easily looked up via a search engine, end up as a question to ChatGPT. And no matter how many times you show them that the chatbot gave insanely wrong results, they're still going to use it.

It's incredibly vague still, that's the problem.

Like, I see, if I wanted to roll my own shitcoin, I can't publish the source code of it on Codeberg.

But, say, a Blockchain lookup app - technically it's a cryptocurrency related project, but at the end of the day it's just an app that connects to a public API and lists data from it. Is it also banned?

Or, I make an open source smart clock, from an LED matrix and an ESP32. This smart clock can link to YouTube/Twitch/etc. for viewer count, to GitHub for project stars/forks, to currency exchanges, and one includes a crypto exchange rate tracker for displaying current mainstream coin valuations (say, the top 5 most used coins). Is this project, since it's crypto related, banned?

Or let's say I come up with something blockchain adjacent, that could be utilised for cryptocurrency use... and what if I just publish a new cryptographic approach that then gets used by a new cryptocoin that suddenly becomes famous?

Or if my project uses a cryptographic system that comes from a dependency that was broken out of a cryptocurrency project?

Where do we draw the line of "related"? What level of relationship is allowed with the world of cryptocurrency? What degree of separation is deemed appropriate?

I'd argue that AI does change things:

• on one hand it increases the percentage of invalid/unusable images. A mis-labeled image is still potentially useful, an image of a toucan in the Arctic isn't. This means that even large datasets become largely unusable because of the volume of fake images.
• on the other hand any AI picture that slips through, taints the dataset and results in expensive manual cleanup to ensure data is reliable.

Those guns STILL REQUIRE KEY COMPONENTS THAT CANT BE 3D PRINTED. Just how many times and how many ways do I have to explain this until it gets through?

You can 3D print a shadow gun, sure, even on a $100 cheapo FDM printer. Thing is, it won't fucking work because there's neither barrel nor firing pin. Two of the, oh, most crucial elements to make a gun into an actual gun. Up until you add these two bits, that gun will do more damage if you chuck it at your target than if you fired it.

TECHNICALLY, you could get away with a firing pin setup made from some wiring and an actual nail, but it would be highly unreliable - misfire, not fire at all, and so on. And even if it did fire, without a barrel, you'd have a 30-40% chance of not hitting your target... at which point you're more likely to kill your target by aiming some higher power pyrotechnics at them. Which are easier and cheaper to acquire.

My point is that a 3D printer isn't necessary for making a gun, and that you can't even make the parts that make something into a gun, using a (regular, commercial FDM) 3D printer.

it's like trying to regulate printers because you can "3D print a car", when in reality you can 3D print a few accessories and components but the entire engine has to be manufactured differently...