Austiiiiii's comments

I mean, I'd buy it if it was like $5000, a compact car, and the person running the company wasn't an unlovable sociopath. Some people like the janky cheap aesthetic.

But $100k for a car like that is a complete insult to good taste. It'd be like selling a luxury 1.5m container home. The low price tag is the entire point of the jank aesthetic. You're supposed to be communicating that you reject the idea of "keeping up with the Joneses" and wear the aesthetic imperfections of the lower economic class as a badge of honor.

Of course, as with every cultural movement of any nuance, real world Dr. Eggman completely missed the point here and shat all over everything with his tone-deaf Rich Frat Boy With Asperger's schtick.

There's a new feature to sync old messages that seems like it could potentially make that attack vector ten times worse:

https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/signal-will-l...

Would a malicious URL be able to activate this feature as part of the request?

He started off wealthy from his dad's blood emerald enterprise. Then he really took off buying into PayPal, a middle man service for making secure money transactions online. Literally got rich off the dot-com boom. That is textbook definition of right place, right time.

Every tech company he owns, he bought. He doesn't do any of the engineering. The only genius he possesses is in creating public hype for products he has invested in. It is 100% persona.

On further reading, I'll grant the first point. Although I wonder if they'll have a technical out—say they distilled from several smaller research companies that had distilled from OpenAI for research purposes, which to my understanding would not constitute a violation of the terms of service.

As for it getting banned, TikTok was banned partly because of credible accounts of it having been used by China to track political enemies. Are we thinking they'll expand the argument on national security to say that any application that transfers data to China is a national security threat? Because that could be a very slippery slope.

And in any case, such a measure seems like it would only bar access to the DeepSeek app. Surely no one could argue that the underlying open source model, if run locally on American soil, could constitute a security threat, right?

And we'd be shooting ourselves in the foot to do so. If America is forced to use only the clunky corporate-owned American AI at a fee, we'll very quickly fall behind competitors worldwide who use DeepSeek models to produce better results for much, much cheaper.

Not to mention it'd defeat the whole purpose of a "free market" economy. (Not that that means much of anything anymore)

Is there any reason they wouldn't rule the same way on DeepSeek training on OpenAI data? After all, one of the big selling points of GPT has been that businesses can freely use the information provided. They're paying for the service, after all. I'd very be interested to know how DeepSeek's usage (very reasonably assuming that they paid for their OpenAI subscription) is any different.

You know, you might as well give it up. He won't give you a free Tesla Truck no matter how brown your nose gets.

The guy's an insufferable manchild with no more actual tech chops than the average boomer, made all the more dangerous by a severe case of Dunning-Kruger. He can't distinguish between reality and sci-fi, and goes around and buys companies that he thinks will make him look like real life Tony Stark.