Not that scumbag ceos wouldn't do such a thing, but doesn't appear to be the case here: https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/U/ Anyways, investors love this subscription model recurring revenue junk, makes sense that if anything their stock price has risen from this announcement. We'll see how it pans out in the long term though.
Ranvier
joined 1 year ago
A few things, that's an abysmal rate when it comes to people's health. A doctor with that success rate would be sued into next century. The rate dropped further when it came to differential diagnosis, implying chat gpt was leaving out important rarer possibilities. Often doctors work by starting with the most common and narrow down from there after repeated rounds of testing if it ends up being something uncommon, but one of their primary jobs is also thinking about rarer dangerous stuff that can mimic more common things and must be ruled out immediately.
Most importantly, the information fed into this was optimized with accurate descriptive medical terminology. This is a language that, in general, patients do not speak. People can also describe things very differently, for instance a patient saying something is weak when a doctor may say no that's numb not weak or visa versa. And dizzy could mean just about anything. Someone typing their own story directly into chat gpt is going to get much worse results than this without someone to interpret the word choices and ask the right questions that people may not even realize are important.
Anyways, the possibilities of AI use in Healthcare is interesting, but disappointing it does worse the less common things get and is bad at a differential diagnosis, the areas that would be really helpful as an aid to diagnosis. Some other areas to think about though could be maybe as a front end to find clinical trials with the us gov database, which can be hard to browse, or maybe streamlining the endless insurance paperwork. I'd be surprised insurance companies don't use something similar already.
Big citation needed on "most" co2 reductions come from carbon capture. If you have it I'd be interested, I couldn't find anything suggesting that. It's a huge bill that carbon capture is just one small part of. I do agree in most circumstances it's talked about right now it's a bit of a scam, especially the idea you're going to be able to pull it out of the air at very low concentrations. Capturing carbon from existing fossil fuel facilities where the concentration may be much higher (something like 13% in many cases as opposed to like 0.04% in normal air) is something more worth exploring. Unless you're suggesting all fossil fuel facilities shut down overnight, exploring ways to make facilities release less carbon is important. The cited article makes a big point about how the power plant emitted more than it captured. But how much would it have emitted without any capture it conspicuously leaves out. Without any capture it would emit more I would assume. Certainly it sounds like those Shell executives lied about how much it was capturing and the US needs to do more, not disagreeing there.
The inflation reduction act was still the most impactful climate act ever passed. You can argue to do more without pretending it was nothing. Dems wanted to do more as well, a lot of these compromises were to get one last senator to come along, and if we had more Dems in the senate they wouldn't have done it. Or even a single fucking republican out of any of them of course who doesn't want to actively destroy the earth. Save the most vicious attacks for the ones who deserve it most, not the ones actually trying to do something.
Oh didn't mean to imply they're not greedy, it's a company. Nvidia would be far greedier though then unless you value their extra features with otherwise worse performance by that much more money. And without competition Nvidia would have free reign to get even more absurd in their pricing. Some competition is better than none. Maybe Intel gpus will start getting good and we can really get some competition going to drive prices lower hopefully.
Yeah agree the high range for amd is meh, if you're just looking for the best out there money is no object, fine with >$1000 gpus, Nvidia has no competition there. The 7900s are more competitive with the Nvidia 4080s and undercut those on price too, 4080s are $1200. So they should really be looked at as a 4080 alternative not 4090 which has no real alternative. Amd offers nothing nearly as expensive as a 4090.
Im very interested in the 7800xt which is a 4070 competitor. If it's outperforming the 4070 in most respects like the amd numbers suggests I think it'll be a great value since it's $100 cheaper. The 4070 only having 12 gb of vram is pretty disappointing too for future proofing, especially for the price. Would like to wait on the reviews of the 7800xt of course first, we only have company provided numbers so far. Also interested in their progress on ray tracing and fsr, which they've clearly been behind Nvidia on for a number of years. But getting enough fps and achieving the resolution you want should still be priority number one over something more niche and game dependent like ray tracing when you're picking out a card I think.
Maybe, because cpu wise amd should be doing better than intel on heat and power consumption. Loud would have to do with the cooler you choose and wouldn't be a function of the cpu itself. Aftermarket coolers are often better than stock and not that pricey, but will want to look into reviews for a quiet one. Amd had been cleaning intel's clock the past few generations in cpu performance. Intel has finally caught up again and is slightly ahead in power this gen, though amd still winning a lot in efficiency and power consumption/heat and still has the best gaming cpu. Good summary here.
https://www.tomshardware.com/features/amd-vs-intel-cpus
In terms of gpu that's gonna vary widely depending on what specific gpu and what configuration of that gpu you're buying. Before buying I would look into specific reviews of that manufacturer if you can and not just the stock gpu itself, because every one is going to have a different configuration and fan/cooler setup for the gpu. Unfortunately gpus from both amd and Nvidia are becoming more and more power hungry giant heat generating monsters over time.
It's hard to say sometimes, announcement was yesterday morning and it didn't budge it much (when I originally made comment stocks had not yet opened for today). It could also be related to the consumer price index showing an inflation uptick this morning compared to July, raising concerns for more rate increases. That report was just released this morning so seems a more likely cause for a change today.That tends to hit faster growing tech companies with poor p/e ratios like unity. There are other companies with the same pattern today, and the drop around the same time. Maybe you could argue the backlash wasn't felt until overnight or something? But it's the stock market, no one can really say for sure.
Not that insider trading and things aren't huge problems, but a ceo who's paid in stock and has regular planned in advance sales of that stock doesn't seem quite the conspiracy to me in this specific case. This was another single 2,000 sale, small in comparison to the 50,000 shares sold so far this year alone for this guy. Ceos often have pay and bonuses tied directly to share price, so the idea they would force a policy they thought would lose money in a conspiracy to tank the share price all to sell another 4% of the total amount of stock he's sold this year at a 5% profit when he could just, not do that, and sell the stock anyways, seems like a huge stretch for me.
Like I don't understand what the conspiracy is supposed to be, ceo decides to tank company shares on purpose for no reason and then sells stock in advance? Why didn't ceo just decide not to tank company shares and continue to make lots more money instead? Presumably they thought this would increase their revenue and profits and therefore stock prices and were hoping it would be popular with investors. Like if he thought it would tank stock prices, the way to make more money would be just not to do it. Now if it's something like, unity ceo had advance knowledge of an earnings report miss and sold a bunch of shares under the table before the report was public, now that's insider trading and a big problem. Or unity ceo shorted hundreds of thousands of company shares and then tanked company on purpose. Anyways, this whole story just seems like uninformed click bait. Save the outrage for unity's decision to hurt game developers.