I'd prefer if Spotify just labelled AI-generated music. They already label all explicit songs with the boxed E so a boxed AI would work well. They'll need to anyway to comply with the EU AI Act: Section 4, if I'm reading it correctly, in force August 2026: https://artificialintelligenceact.eu/article/50/
> Even though the industry would be willing to pay top dollar for each pound of metal delivered, there is simply not much more to be found. Copper bearing formations are not popping up at random, and there is no point in drilling various spots on Earth prospecting for deposits, either. The major formations have already been discovered, and thus the ever increasing investment spent on locating more copper simply does not produce a return.
How do we "know" there isn't any major formations we haven't found yet? I find it hard to believe we've prospected every possible area.. or are deposits more predictable than it seems?
We ran out of cheap pure copper a long time ago. Now we're producing copper out of ores that contain a very small proportion of copper. If the price goes up we'll produce copper from ores that contain an even smaller fraction of copper.
Copper is 60 ppm of the crust. As long as the price keeps going up, we'll never run out.
The mining majors, BHP, Rio Tinto, et al have petabytes of surface geochemistry, samples, near surface magnetic maps that penetrate into the crust, 3D seismic maps, drill cores, technical reports on every mine ever, surrounding geology, and good models on where economic feasible (at particular price points) amounts of desirable metals can be found.
For example, there are only so many places significant masses of porphyry copper deposit will be found (although these aren't the only types of copper deposit).
For people interested in subscribing, there are databases such as the S&P portal that scratch some of that industry knowledge.
although they seem to have backed off from a public page about the GIS portal to the mining databases they purchased.
So; pretty much most areas have been scratched - Antartica is still open, the Artic has possibilities .. but should we.
There are known untapped masses of copper, eg: in the US there's a mass that will take 64 years to mine .. that's on Apache land so, you know, it'll be US history all over again poking that one.
But that doesn't work. The chart states that 1 cup of 00 flour is 116g which is simply not true. It _might_ be 116g, but it could also be 200g (!). Volume measurement is simply not suitable for baking.
For things like sauces or marinades, you use a much smaller amount, and approximate is generally fine.
Well yes, but it's a matter of perspective I think. Is it the amount that the recipe author used? Maybe, maybe not. But is it the amount you used the last dozen times you used this recipe? Of course, as long as your chart hasn't changed.
To be clear, I'm not disagreeing with your general premise, everything would be much easier if all recipes used weights for powder-like-ingredients. But recipes that actually have weights listed are few and far between, I find.
There is no (serious) baker that use volume for flour. If the recipe uses volume, it is flawed and you should find another recipe.
Every recipe on King Arthur that you linked has weights.
I realize how I sound, but there is a very big difference in a couple of percentages of flour, and you'd definitely mess up a beginner with the difference with the amount of flour.
"The technology is not useful", at least in enterprise contexts, is what this comes out to. Which is really where the money is, because some vibecoder paying $20/mo for Claude really doesn't matter (especially when it costs $100/mo to run inference for his queries in the first place). Enterprise is the only place this could possibly make money.
Think about it: MS has a giant advantage over every other AI vendor, that they can directly insert the product into the OS and LOB apps without the business needing to onboard a new vendor. This is best case scenario, and by far the easiest sell for these tools. Given how badly they're failing, yeah, turns out orgs just don't see the value in it.
Next year will be interesting too: I suspect a large portion of the meager sales they managed to make will not renew, it'll be a bloodbath.
MS has a giant advantage over every other vendor for all kinds of products (including defunct ones). Sometimes they function well, sometimes they do not. Sometimes they make money, sometimes they do not. MS isn't the tech (or even enterprise tech) bellcow.
Considering enterprise typically is characterized by perfunctory tasks, information silos, and bit rot, they're a perfect application of LLMs. It's just Microsoft kind of sucks at a lot of things.
> The sum of the most recent four consecutive quarters’ Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) earnings (net income excluding discontinued operations) should be positive as should the most recent quarter.
I don't really understand why the commute always comes up as an argument in the WFH/RTO slapfights. How is your commute anyone's fault but your own? Could you not choose to live walking distance from work? Why is it the company's fault you moved three hours out to a low-COL area during covid? If your org is going RTO and you want to stay with them, couldn't you just, ya know, reduce your commute?
That's all besides the point I am making... All things being equal, why is remote work not better for the employer as well as employee? Less commute=more energy and better focus=increased efficiency (I get much more work done at home than in an office). At the same time the employer doesn't need to provide as much real estate space, so it's not only more efficient, but cheaper. The only advantage seems to be control/authority? In what way is having employees in office preferable. Most of my meetings are with teams that are geographically dispersed anyways. Is it really any more effective to take a Zoom call in an office vs at my desk at home?
I generally can't control housing prices, and whenever I suggest building more, the ire of the entire landed gentry class is directed into a singularity centered on my forehead.
>Could you not choose to live walking distance from work?
With housing prices being insane? No. There are like 12 different policy failures that make it impossible to live much closer to work than people already do, and it's only getting worse as rural America hollows out and people move to cities where there are amenities, like cafes and hospitals.
>Why is it the company's fault you moved three hours out to a low-COL area during covid?
Because these companies said we could? Why are you so quick to blame employees who would be destitute without a job, whereas these behemoth companies could fire everyone and just do nothing with their capital for ten years and be fine? People are just trying to get by and survive, and you're blaming them?
>If your org is going RTO and you want to stay with them, couldn't you just, ya know, reduce your commute?
Sure, I'll just get the magic "property price go down" wand.
It absolutely happens, and often. I don't know when the last time you tried to hire was but things are absolutely brutal right now. The most common is personnel who think they can get away with an hour or two of work a day (whether they're working multiple jobs or just screwing around at home is hard to say). Second is bait-and-switch where the interviewee is not the person who shows up day 1.. after four (!) incidents in a quarter we had to mandate at least one in-person interview during the hiring process which seems to have helped.
reply