I wonder if that number can be adjusted based on the amount of arable land, or based on the ease of construction (quite the nebulous term here admittedly). The number of mountains presumably makes this hard to compare.

I mean, sure, in the sense that they're a real and meaningful number for most of the spectrum on offer, and only gets silly when the number gets too high? There's a pretty big usability difference between 10t/s and 100t/s, and I can imagine similarly for 100->1000. I don't know about > 1000, but let's not pretend that the number is meaningless.

It is pretty meaningless for something that calls itself intelligent.

Throwing out another factor: Chinese companies have been banned and/or limited from buying nvidia, and turned to local companies for their hardware. I haven't actually seen pricing/benchmarks comparing Chinese AI accelerators, but it wouldn't surprise me if that also worked out in their favor as well.

And, possibly, state subsidies at every level.

I have to point out the massive state subsidies in the united states for the tech companies and datacenter builders.

Many people think their claimed TAM is total fiction, and attempting an actual realistic TAM relies far more heavily on starlink. From morningstar:

> Our base-case forecast entails $56 billion in revenue for Starlink in these niche and growth areas by 2035, representing about 45% of the identifiable market we’ve sized

source: https://www.morningstar.com/stocks/spacex-what-investors-nee...

> Many people think their claimed TAM is total fiction, and attempting an actual realistic TAM relies far more heavily on starlink.

Then either the TAM for Starlink is ~20x bigger than reported by SpaceX (I doubt they would downplay themselves in such a way) or the whole SpaceX TAM is ~5x smaller (much more realistic, if not more than that)

I think the TAM for both is reasonable (it's just generic "Enterprise" stuff, at the end of the day), but I think Starlink is better able to capture a larger portion of its TAM.

I think in some people's minds, the concept of sentience and intelligence are intertwined, and there are at least some people (myself included) who do not think they're the same. There is a strong (but surprisingly not universal) consensus that LLMs are not sentient, so if you insist that sentience/intelligence are the same thing, then LLMs don't qualify as AI either. If you think the two concepts are separable, then they're intelligent but not sentient. The devil is of course in the definitions.

> Depends who 'we' is - I've seen plenty of non-tech people in the real world begin to use ChatGPT as a primary information source rather than the web (rightfully or not!)

I don't think that's really what people are talking about when they talk about 'agentic' PCs.

I think we are more broadly talking about what the user interface is going to be in the future and how people will interact with a computer - many people already want to interact with ChatGPT to get answers rather than navigate to a website, or want to prompt ChatGPT to generate a leaflet rather than design one in Microsoft Word, so 'Agentic PCs' is just an extension to that.

I think that was example of how previously seemingly impossible things are happening things are happening quickly.

I think the management answer to this is that you can just hire 9 offshore not-seniors for less money, and that somehow equals the experience of a single onshore senior. In that sense it's a kind of the experience equivalent of the 9 women/1month == baby analogy, and obviously wrong. Unless you're in management.

More or less correct. It's not that management believes in "9 offshore juniors", it's just that they don't know (nor care to confirm) who's actually working for them at the outsourcing firm.

The combined incentive of cost cutting at the outsourcing firm and foolish MBAs in the west opting for the cheapest outsourcing means that the offshore does actually employ juniors, who do build up the experience to become seniors.

If they think that will work what prevents them from doing it now vs later when the senior are gone?

> Copilot was a huge flop

_Which_ copilot? Lots of big businesses are buying github copilot for their devs, I wouldn't call it a flop by any stretch.

Even if it were somehow a flop, whats Mark Zuckerberg offering? My key point still stands. Mark Zuckerberg is asleep at the wheel burning billions with zero to show for it.

The one in that section that kills me is the lack of `uname`. So you build a bunch of posix-compatible stuff, note that some things will be missing and some work slightly differently. It sure would be nice if we had a standard way of telling which kind of system you were on then, WOULDN'T IT?? (a very common use case for uname)

Oh man, I really hope this is sarcasm :)

To explore this (hopefully parody) alt history, I don't know why the us gov wouldn't waited 70 some years for spacex to reach this point to grant that monopoly versus handing it off to the usual collection of defense contractors, eg raytheon (or whatever they're called now), Rand, etc.

The Holloman Pact made the alien technology transfer contingent on launching an alien-human hybrid program. You see, the Zeta Reticulans mandate their technology to be stewarded by hybrids (similar to how China requires a 50% Chinese joint venture to gain access to their markets). The two species' geneticists started working together, and in 1971 the first viable hybrid was born: Elon Musk. Then we had to wait for the hybrid to mature, before it could be given stewardship of this sensitive technology. Meanwhile a generations-long cultural manipulation program was also underway, to prepare humanity for disclosure.

This is the most rational argument in this entire discussion.

It's just the plot to the X-Files, upgraded to the social media age.

X-Files was always part of the soft-disclosure.

No joke the actor who played Cigarette Smoking Man (William Davis) has said that he got all kinds of mail from people who had "proof" of aliens and for some reason thought he'd be the right one to share it with.

I want to believe.

Well, now the "X" (X.com, SpaceX, Model X...) finally makes sense!

So what you're saying is we need tariffs on alien goods.

Let's see, maybe we'll be the Chinese for them, and they'll be hitting us with tarriffs once King Reticulani XVII gets into power.

Of course it's sarcasm, but if it WAS true, it would be because the government was working in cahoots with all those defense contractors all along, until the Trump administration came along and decided to privatize it, at which point SpaceX seized its opportunity.