Yay! Nobody Cares about Tickle Me Elmo Musk

[CronoCloud Creeggan]

I do, however, expect computer makers and car manufacturers to produce a serviceable, reliable product that doesn't require me to have a Master's in Computer science.

It seems that it is hard for makers to do so.

Knowing me, I'd fuck Linux up too.

It's hard to permanently fuck up a Linux box, unless one is running as root when one probably shouldn't.

But but 2024 is the year of Linux on the desktop!

 

[Cindy Claveau]

It's hard to permanently fuck up a Linux box, unless one is running as root when one probably shouldn't.

Have you met me?

 

[Noodles]

It's hard to permanently fuck up a Linux box, unless one is running as root when one probably shouldn't.

I once accidentally did a sudo chmod -R on root, because of a typo.

I had to rebuild the server completely.

 

[Essence Lumin]

It seems that it is hard for makers to do so.



It's hard to permanently fuck up a Linux box, unless one is running as root when one probably shouldn't.

I have seen people recommend sudo rm -rf / to fix problems on certain mean spirited boards.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

 

[Argent Stonecutter]

Damn, bash.org and all its mirrors seem to all be dead so I can't link to the IRC log where someone told a newbie that "rm -rf" means "root mode - real fast" and the newbie promptly disconnected.

 

[Bartholomew Gallacher]

Even more concerning for America though should be Starlink: while this satellite network is being marketed as "global internet access everywhere", its impact on modern warfare is immense. Ukrainian drones heavily do rely on it, and the Russians really want to jam it, but have not reached that goal yet.

Also communist China is very aware about the threat which Starlink poses, and thinking about counter measures, one just is to put more own low orbit satellites up above China before Starlink does it.

The features of Starlink which does give military strategists a headache are:

a) many don't believe that really Musk has to say much in it, but instead is just a sock puppet for the US Army in that case or they will if needed take it away from Musk anyway,
b) the sheer number of satellites in orbit. Even if you destroy one with a weapon, this weapon is gone, but the rest of satellites just will move a little bit around since there's so much redundancy, and that's it. Also per every SpaceX lunch 60-100 new satellites get deployed. So putting them into orbit is dirt as cheap, putting them out of orbit however is not. And in order that it matters you literally would have to destroy a few hundred at least, literally, because there's so much redundancy in orbit which takes over automatically if something breaks or fails.

So Starlink is piece of technology in action, which greatly affects the national security of America. Whoever runs it, can make decisions which could strengthen or lessen the national security. So the American administration really should IMHO evaluate if they do seem Musk fit to run this piece of critical infrastructure or not. In my opinion Starlink should be run like GPS, it needs to be nationalised by the states.

 

[Bartholomew Gallacher]

Judge voids Elon Musk's 'unfathomable' $56 billion Tesla pay package



The lol paragraph from all this:

Musk moved SpaceX in the meantime from Delaware to Texas.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/15/business/spacex-delaware-texas.html

 

[Free]

Elon Musk’s Tunnel Reportedly Oozing With Skin-Burning Chemical Sludge

Despite a decade of dreaming, Elon Musk has only built one tiny Hyperloop tunnel in Las Vegas — and the people who built it say it's filled with dangerous chemical sludge.

As Bloomberg reports, the Boring Company's scarce output — which thus far amounts only to driving Teslas around a few miles of neon-lit tunnel underneath Sin City as they ferry convention attendees at no more than 40 miles per hour — has also come with a massive buildup of waste, the consistency of a milkshake, that's said to burn the skin of anyone who comes in contact with it.

 

[Bartholomew Gallacher]

Once in a while I totally do agree with Elon Musk on certain matters.

 

[Bartholomew Gallacher]

Elon Musk is suing... OpenAI and its CEO Sam Altman! Why? Breach of contractual obligations.

“OpenAI Inc has been transformed into a closed-source, de facto subsidiary of the largest technology company in the world: Microsoft. Under its new board, it is not just developing but is actually refining an AGI to maximise profits for Microsoft, rather than for the benefit of humanity,” the lawsuit alleges.
[...]
The suit claims Altman purported to share Musk’s concerns over AGI and in 2015 proposed forming a non-profit AI lab that would be “the opposite of Google”, now known as OpenAI. Together with Greg Brockman, OpenAI’s president, who is also being sued by Musk, the three men agreed to create a lab whose principles would be enshrined in a founding agreement.

The lab would be “for the benefit of humanity”, would be a not-for-profit company and would be open-source, the term for making the technology freely available.

The lawsuit claims that Musk, who stepped away from OpenAI in 2018, was a “moving force” behind the creation of OpenAI and supplied a majority of its funding in its early years. Microsoft is now the biggest investor in OpenAI’s profit-making arm, which Altman runs, after a deal struck in 2020.

The lawsuit claims that OpenAI, Altman and Brockman “set the founding agreement aflame” in 2023 after releasing GPT-4, the powerful model that underpins OpenAI’s ChatGPT chatbot. GPT-4’s design was kept secret and such behaviour showed a radical departure from OpenAI’s original mission, the lawsuit said.

“This secrecy is primarily driven by commercial considerations, not safety,” says the lawsuit, which is claiming breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty and unfair business practices.

It added that GPT-4 was an AGI technology effectively owned by Microsoft, an arrangement that is allegedly outside the scope of the company’s licensing agreement with OpenAI. The lawsuit also claims OpenAI is developing a model know as Q* [Q star] that has an even stronger claim to be AGI.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2024/mar/01/elon-musk-sues-open-ai-profit-power-microsoft-sam-altman

 

[Argent Stonecutter]

GPT-4 is no more an AGI than a paper plane is a Falcon 9.

 

[Bartholomew Gallacher]

So to get this straight: the lawyers who put Musk's 56 billion$ package successfully before court as "way too much and excessive" and won now want that Musk pays them 6 bn$ for their services, because he lost that trial and has to pay them. Talk about greed my ass.

 

[Argent Stonecutter]

Tesla is a public company, and Musk's relationship with Tesla where that income is concerned is that of a Tesla employee. It's a perfectly normal shareholder suit. They didn't damage Tesla, they saved it a bundle. And Musk is not paying for saving Tesla 56B, Tesla is. Dude, they saved Tesla 56B, so that doesn't seem like an unreasonable fee.

 

[GoblinCampFollower]

Tesla is a public company, and Musk's relationship with Tesla where that income is concerned is that of a Tesla employee. It's a perfectly normal shareholder suit. They didn't damage Tesla, they saved it a bundle. And Musk is not paying for saving Tesla 56B, Tesla is. Dude, they saved Tesla 56B, so that doesn't seem like an unreasonable fee.

I certainly agree the lawyers saved Tesla 56B and deserve compensation. It's cute that Elon is acting like they damaged "Tesla" and not just him. That said, I have a hard time believing 6B is a fair legal fee. Elon has no room to talk about excessive compensation but still.

 

[Veritable Quandry]

While there are some activist law firms, most lawyers don't believe in your cause. They believe in getting paid for services.

They also know this is going to be challenged, but so is anything they propose. It's just an opening negotiation position.

 

[Dakota Tebaldi]

Elon Musk is suing... OpenAI and its CEO Sam Altman! Why? Breach of contractual obligations.

Contractual obligations to whom? Musk left the board six years ago in order to start working on AI himself, for profit.

 

[Veritable Quandry]

This would take a lot of reading, but there may be some merit in that OpenAI was started as a non-profit which technically still exists but controls a for-profit corporation that makes deals with other corporations so the non-profit is not directly making deals but has full control over them. It's a complex structure, and an original founder has some ability to sue a non-profit if it is not living up to it's purpose. This is what makes money for lawyers, just get paid up from if Musk is your client.

 

[Dakota Tebaldi]

This would take a lot of reading, but there may be some merit in that OpenAI was started as a non-profit which technically still exists but controls a for-profit corporation that makes deals with other corporations so the non-profit is not directly making deals but has full control over them. It's a complex structure, and an original founder has some ability to sue a non-profit if it is not living up to it's purpose.

Maybe they can sue for something, but I'm pretty that something can't be "breach of contract" unless there's an actual contract that was signed by the person who's suing.

Another thing is that Musk wasn't just some random donor. He was an OpenAI board member at the beginning, and then eventually left. The decisions he's complaining about are all alleged to have been made after his departure - so, this seems to be trying to create some kind of weird situation where a director can leave an organization but somehow still retains their director voice to the degree that he can sue the board for making decisions even years after he left because he wouldn't have agreed to those decisions while he was an active member, and that doesn't seem like it makes sense.

 

[Veritable Quandry]

If his initial funding had explicit conditions it could be breach of contract.