> AI is "completely inaccessible to experiment given our current technology"?
No, that’s not what the article/talk said. It said AI _risk_ is inaccessible (as the poster you’re replying to correctly includes in their quote). The point in the original talk is clear if you read it; that everyone coming up with their own pet theories for how superintelligent AI could destroy us as a species is building their theory on speculation on top of speculation.
Note that the talk is from 2016, before transformers and LLMs were invented. Though I would argue that the vast majority of it, including the parts we’re discussing here, are still completely valid.
Okay, so you were mostly referring to payment industry standards, not laws or regulations.
> PCI-DSS (enforced by banks/payment processors) means the EMV token store on your Android phone must be in an isolated uncompromised location (usually the TEE).
Do you have a citation for this? My understanding is that the whole point of EMV tokenization is that it masks the sensitive cardholder data that would otherwise have to be protected in a PCI compliant way. In other words, I don’t think the data that is stored on your phone is covered by PCI-DSS.
And as another poster already mentioned, I don’t think the EU law you’re citing works the way you claim it does.
> People have convinced themselves that game key cards are terrible, when they're the exact same thing as the old style of cartridges, with the only difference that you don't have the 1.0 on it.
I guess this statement is correct, but my point is that the most important thing to me is that I have the game on the cartridge.
Sure, unless the game is no longer available for download, in which case the key card is a worthless piece of plastic to anyone who hasn’t downloaded it previously. And you still have to contend with all the other downsides of downloadable games including managing the free space on your device.
At this point I don’t trust any console manufacturer to pinky promise that downloads will always be available, so I will not buy anything but a proper physical copy.
I feel this in my bones and it's a great way to frame it. My last Playstation console was a PS2 and I've also opted out of recent generations. Historically, for me, one of the benefits of a console was that you could just pop the game in, and it would always work, simply and easily.
DRM, online checks, DLC that should have been part of the base game, digital-only games, etc have ruined all that, and if that's going to be the trend everywhere I'll just stick to a PC and Steam where I have a library of games built up over the decades.
I have a Switch and feel that Nintendo provided a decent experience on their recent systems, but with the advent of "game keys" or whatever they call it on the Switch 2, they've flipped to being even worse than the digital-only systems. At least Sony isn't (yet?) trying to sell you a license on a disc to try to fool you into thinking you own a physical copy.
$3k for a 5090 fits your criteria and is in the same category of "you can use it for other stuff" (gaming), and is going to run circles around the M1 Ultra Mac Studio.
Or you can spend ~$2k on a pair of 3090s, which gives you 48GB of memory and will also be significantly faster than the M1 Ultra.
IMO there is no situation in 2026 where buying a 32GB M1 Ultra is the right move.
edit: for the folks brave enough to try them there are also additional aftermarket/modded options; I've seen both 4080 Super cards upgraded to 32GB of memory, and 4090 cards upgraded to 48GB. The former comes in at $2k-2.5k and would still be faster than the M1 Ultra.
I'd also like to call out that "high bandwidth memory" (HBM) is a specifically defined thing[0], and is used in high end GPUs, and notably not used in Apple's machines.
I know you probably weren't referring to this type of memory in your post, but IMO it might be worth avoiding this term in the future unless you're referring to HBM, the standard.
Yeah this is just not the case at all; a 5090 or any of the recent nvidia workstation cards all fit this criteria.
Also, while memory bandwidth is important, it isn’t the only consideration. Apple’s architecture has memory bandwidth equal to a mid-range consumer GPU, but its GPU speed is much, much worse than, say, a 5080 or 5090. This translates into e.g. much slower time to first token on Mac systems compared to dedicated GPUs.
512GB of matched DDR5 DIMMs at retail will currently run you $14k-20k+ depending on speed. So I’d imagine a now-hypothetical upgrade to 512GB on the Mac Studio would be in that ballpark.
You ignored the part where I mentioned "extreme" and "locked up." To be fair I wasn't necessarily clear what those meant. I'm specifically referring to the deal(s) that OpenAI signed which reserved an outsized chunk of the memory supply, for what is apparently speculative future hardware that hasn't been built yet, or at least to build hardware that no consumer or business will ever be able to physically purchase.
Hopefully you'll agree that there's a difference between even a large buyer like Apple reserving a large chunk of DRAM supply to put in their products that they sell to consumers, and the anti-competitive behavior by OpenAI that I describe above.
I want to believe this is true, but I am increasingly encountering situations IRL where saying "I don't have a smartphone" would be a serious hindrance to doing whatever it is I'm doing.
Because extreme corporate use, that is, what is happening now where a majority of supply is locked up ahead of time via B2B back-room deals, is anti-consumer. Unregulated, it is easy to see how this could lead to a perpetual "rent everything" dystopian environment for consumers.
Barring any single company from negotiating to buy more than a certain percentage of a given existing market of goods would be a start. Companies would still be free to build their own factories/fabs if they didn't like it.
That, and putting Sam Altman in jail for being a lying fraudster.
The only news about this I saw was that Cook confirmed that price increases were inevitable, but he wouldn't say when or how they would come. I think most people erroneously took this to mean that they'd roll them out gradually as products were refreshed.
No, that’s not what the article/talk said. It said AI _risk_ is inaccessible (as the poster you’re replying to correctly includes in their quote). The point in the original talk is clear if you read it; that everyone coming up with their own pet theories for how superintelligent AI could destroy us as a species is building their theory on speculation on top of speculation.
Note that the talk is from 2016, before transformers and LLMs were invented. Though I would argue that the vast majority of it, including the parts we’re discussing here, are still completely valid.