poochyena

Why would they do any of that? "reduce manpower" is a non-answer since AI isn't going to replace most people, as most of the jobs require physical interactions. And, what, a country is going to spend billions on tanks and ships, but can't afford to pay a few people to control/navigate them? And how does the AI do anything, like drive a tank? Does the tank have wi-fi? How does it refuel? How does it know where its going?

how would it do any of that?

After hearing linus describe chat AI as like "the development of nuclear weapons" (which is insanely distasteful, as people have actually died from nuclear weapons) on the wan show, I want to hear it. What is this "extinction level event" which involves AI? I see this "argued" very often, but never any specifics, just that AI is new and scary and suddenly everyone will die soon because of it, somehow. So.. how? What scenario does that happen? And I'm not asking how could it cause some harm, like causing some business to go bankrupt or some stock market manipulation or whatever, I'm asking specifically about the "nuclear weapon" equivilant or "extinction level event" scenario that chat AI will cause.

So its a device for edgy teens to be edgy

Kinda surprised there was no mention of using a low powered laptop for remote work using the power of your desktop PC.

It only lasted for around 10 years. Compare that to the playstation and xbox controller. They have existed and had little changed for ~20 years now, with no sign of going away any time soon. Thats the difference I'm alluding to. A gimmick isn't something that doesn't sell a lot, its something that doesn't have a lasting impact. VR is an interactive experience. Its great, but barriers are just too strong. Often when people games, they don't want to move around and go through the hassle of getting the big clunky headset out of the box and putting it on. They want to sit back and relax. The main reason its a gimmick is because it doesn't do anything better than non-vr. Its a different experience, but is it a better experience? No. Maybe for very niche applications like car racing sim games, but thats only if you prefer the 1st person view and not 3rd person. Shooting and adventure VR games are fun, but are they better than keyboard/mouse or controller games? No, not really. Some games you can only really experience in VR, like beat saber, but that goes back to what I said about people wanting to game to relax, not to exercise or move around a bunch. On a personal note, my biggest issues with my htc vive headset was that my glasses would fog up, and the devices often wouldn't pair correctly or some other software issue like audio not registering correctly. My glasses fogging up whenever I played was the worst issue for sure though. idk if other headsets had the problem too. I could launch rocket league in 30 seconds, or I could spend several minutes, or longer, getting the headset out of the box, pairing all the devices, hope the controllers are charged, move everything around in my room to create space to play.... anyways I just always chose the simpler option of launching rocket league or some other non-vr game instead since I didn't want to deal with the hassle of the headset.

Why is linus against monitor light bars? They don't give off bad light reflections like a normal lamp does. They are amazing Can you tell me what I can buy on amazon but can't buy elsewhere on the internet or irl? Fairly certain amazon has a monopoly on exactly 0 product categories.

thaaaaaaaaaat seems like a comparison you don't want to make for the argument that VR has a bright future. The Wii, while hugely successful, was entirely a gimmick that has faded away. Sure, VR uses motion controls, but no one uses motion controls outside of VR. But, well, I do agree that the wii and VR are very similar, but its because of that that I think VR doesn't have a future. The wii was fun, and so is VR, but its just a gimmick with little lasting appeal. I owned and sold both my wii and VR headset after a few years of owning them. Similar to 3D games and movies too. the 3DS was successful, but largely a gimmick.

you can add a rear bike rack if you need the extra space for heavy stuff like that Sure they can. If they won't benefit from the electric bike revolution, then they can be ignored and the people who will benefit can be given the advanced tech. Rural people shouldn't be gate keepers of revolutionary tech. That means cars are dangerous, not bikes.

huh? why not? I do it just fine. I could have fit more into my basket too, or have also worn a backpack. This is in Huntsville, Alabama, USA Most people live in cities or towns, so thats irrelevant. Like saying smartphones weren't a revelation since some people in rural areas have no cell service. No one is saying it will work literally everywhere on earth. I literally don't get this logic. Do you think smartphones are a failure since they don't work everywhere? "not everywhere has electricity or cell service!" Especially when you have to drive on the main road? Tell me, why is that? Is it because of....... cars? if cars are killing people left and right, then it ain't the bikes that are dangerous.

I visited Malaysia earlier this month, and while there were few bikes, there were loads of speedy trains. I traveled to multiple cities by train in 1 day while making multiple stops. Bikes for city travel and trains for longer distance travel is unbeatable. Few countries do both though.. with the US doing basically neither. I think electric bikes will be enough to change that though.

Electric bicycles. Portability of a regular bicycle, with the range of 95% of trips people make on a normal day, the minimal effort required to operate like cars, most of the fun of a motorcycle, and much much safer than cars. Oh, and much cheaper and less carbon emissions! With the uprising of electric bikes, there is VERY little reason for most people to own a car as long as governments update roads to accommodate the bikes. They are just simple better than cars in nearly every way and will revolutionize transportation.

Its their own software though, so the term monopoly makes no sense. Its like saying Linus has a monopoly on LTT forums or a monopoly on LTTstore.com. No one would use the term monopoly like that. A monopoly isn't when a company controls what is available on its own devices.

I'd love to see a review of this mouse https://www.spreepicky.com/products/cute-bunny-wireless-mouse-kimi

That doesn't mean they have a monopoly. Android is their competitor, and any app on ios can be ported to android. Developers have the choice to develop for iphone and android. The term I think you all are looking for is "walled garden", not monopoly. They aren't the only company selling apps for smartphone devices. Its not a monopoly just because they are the only ones selling apps on their own device.

Did Linus forget that Android exists? Literally how is Apple a monopoly?

videos like these should be 60 fps

Actually, no, computers can be MORE random than humans. Humans are actually kinda bad at randomness.

Mini computer showdown Have a ~$250 to $500 mini windows computer, android tablet, and android phone compete against each other to determine which is the best travel computer. When I travel and want to relax in my hotel room, which device will be best? The mini PC, tablet, or phone (with usb c to hdmi cable and blue tooth mouse and keyboard)? Which allows you to do the most for the smallest size? Which is best value when size is a factor?

Is this really that much better than just using a tablet? or your own phone + a usb c to hdmi connector? These tiny PCs just seem to have an EXTREMELY niche use case to me.

I'd love to see a review of a Sony phone. I absolutely LOVE my Sony Xperia 10 III. I bought it for ~$350 It actually has a headphone jack, and every other feature you'd want. edit; Oh, I will say though, the camera isn't great. REALLY REALLY bad auto focus. It refuses to focus correctly most of the time.

isn't that, like, everything that involves machines or computers?

but its not. People have to give it prompts for it to work. Its not just creating works of out from its own free will, people are inputting what they want outputted. short for "I shot this on an iphone" not "iphone shot this photo". The implication is heavily that a person took the photo using an iphone. But people say that when those things do something unintended. When it happened without human interaction or directive. Generating images or text is explicitly through human interaction. If you pull up chatGPT and you do nothing, then chatGPT will also do nothing. The voting machine is probably the best other example of this phenomena.

I noticed this a lot, including in the recent wan show. They don't say people generated art, they said AI generated the art. I just find it weird when someone uses AI to generate an image similar to another image, they blame the AI for it, and not the creator of the image. Like, when taking a photo, no one says "sony camera took this photo" they say "I took this photo using my sony camera". AI art and text generators are tools, not sentient beings that produce things out of their own free will.

1. Doesn't matter, what LTT said was still wrong. 2. Totally disagree. I'm a semi-professional (its a supplement to my business, not my full income) and I can do a lot with photoshop elements. Obviously the full version is better, but to say its not good, I disagree with. An "advanced amateur" is likely still using his/her phone and using free phone based editing. I literally never said anything even remotely similar. I never once, in even the slightlest sense, suggest people use elements over the full version of photoshop in that comment. I swear I could say "I like waffles" and you'd ask why I hate pancakes. Also, what do you mean to suggest elements has "none of the features people actually buy photoshop for."? Do people not buy it to edit raw files? To touch up photos with spot healing tools? To remove background? To have access to dozens of layers? I can do a lot of editing with photoshop elements.