"At RunRepeat, we conduct lab tests on hundreds of athletic shoes yearly, measuring everything from shock absorption (ASTM F1976 13) to traction (SATRA TM144). We make this data available to researchers and academic institutions to support science in footwear, biomechanics, and material developments."

Documenting measurements, using machine testing, and standardizing evaluations is above and beyond any YouTube unboxing.

This would be an insane video game map.

This would be a fire FPS especially if the bullets traveled along the curve.

Even crazier idea would be the possibility of 'normal bullets' that travel along the curve, and 'special bullets' that travel on a direct diagonal via warped space & time.

>Yes, but on whom does it work?

Hitting the nail on the head here-> know your target audience.

I was about to say the same thing..

I use a dual A7X setup with a Sub10 Mk2 in a proper studio listening environment, and I can easily hear the difference between a low‑quality MP3 and a fully lossless WAV/FLAC. I do have trained ears, but even an untrained listener could probably notice that level of difference.

Define low-quality. Encoded at V[0-2] with a recent LAME, I doubt the difference is more than ABX nitpick material; and that despite MP3's inherent limitations (like https://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=LAME_Y_switch...).

I use a pair of calibrated Genelec 8341 btw.

True, but the subscription model is what allowed them to stop caring. Subscriptions will likely kill more software companies than AI in the long run.

>Except the "profit that is mathematically impossible" part. That's just made up and false. It's entirely possible that we are actually underestimating demand, and there is going to be tons of profit.

JP Morgan says $650 billion in annual revenue required to deliver mere 10% return on AI buildout is equivalent to $35 payment from every iPhone user, or $180 from every Netflix subscriber 'in perpetuity.'

Very, very, very unlikely it makes profit, which why AI keeps getting overhyped by CEOs.

Altman said months ago that they are expecting around $65/user/month from ad-supported ChatGPT. A strong hint about where they see account prices in the future.

When you run the numbers, $65/mo turns AI investment into a a 5-7 ROI, which is totally within normal bounds.

Considering there are over a billion unique weekly active users for the major labs, and demand has been relentless, it's a pretty easy sell to get investors on board.

"You pay internet, you pay phone, you pay AI".

Those numbers sound... unrealistic to me. Just doing some napkin math: 65 $/user/month / 0.01 $/ad ~= 6500 ads/user/month, which is about an ad per minute if you assume someone is using the chat interface 4 hours a day including weekends. Maybe you see that behavior from "my GF/BF is AI" types but I'm also already assuming 0.01 $/ad which is super high to my understanding (if you work in adtech please correct me if I'm wrong). I don't forsee over 50% of your workday or leisure time spent in ChatGPT as likely, especially if the ad rate is well beyond YouTube's nigh-unusable amount it is now.

There's never going to be 65$/user/month, they already struggle to move past 5% of paying users with the current pricing.

Did they consider that profits on the build out won't be uniform, i. e. there will be some companies that go under but the rest of them will capture the profit?

Some companies going under doesn't change anything about the market as a whole.

If the demand is real and the company just sucked, their users and infrastructure will end up at a competitor: the value for that one company is bigger, but the overall per-user bill remains about the same.

If the demand is fake the infrastructure will be sold off at a big loss, allowing new companies to enter the market with far smaller investment costs, allowing them to undercut the competition, driving down the price users expect to pay for compute, resulting in a race to the bottom between the remaining AI companies in an attempt to attract enough users that their hardware won't sit idle - which in turn makes it far less likely that they'll be able to hit those revenue figures. And a bunch of investors just lost a few billion dollars, of course.

And the rest still bought RAM, GPU and datacenters.

What a giant waste of resources that are missing elsewhere

Consider that a large majority of the revenue will come from businesses.

Even $100 per month per employee will likely turn out to be quite reasonable, if it can make employees more productive by several hundred dollars per month.

it could replace a bunch of $100k+/year workers.

Well, even these AI companies cannot manage to replace these workers themselves.

the big question is: who would pay for those services then?

I mean I love simplicity, and if economy could be simplified to a big money printer machine directly printing the money to a burner, then it would be so simple, that even a short context window could comprehend the economic cycle finally!

Question to your question: How many will actually get a job?

When the system fails to reward compliance, that begrudging conformity will eventually curdle into systemic disruption.

History has proven so time & time again.

Lock a massive class of highly educated, financially desperate young people out of the economy.. they won't just starve in silence. They organize unions, radicalize politics, and ultimately rewrite the rules of the game.

Expectation: In 10 years, killer drones will corral us away from quarantine zones to forcibly infect millions of hapless civilians. The proletariat will revolt and wage civil war against the state, sending millions of shock troops to fight for representation in government or dismantle the governing body itself. They will die peacefully, knowing they were right.

Reality: People will scroll TikTok for another decade and contract sedentary lifestyle diseases that they blame on others instead of themselves. Constant influence campaigns and surveillance will keep them divided and give them new scapegoats to assuage their mounting insecurity and shame for their generation. They will die outraged, knowing they were wrong.

False dichotomy. Why not both, depending on the individual and their circumstances?

We have 10 years of health crises, violent protests and populist contempt for the American government to cross-reference.

Yes, but to your previous point, the propaganda system is well tuned enough to pit the blue half of that populist contempt against the red half, even though you and I both know it's orchestrated by the uniparty. The only thing that comes to mind recently that bridges the gap is the Epstein stuff, but people are easily distracted with aforementioned propaganda and mindless scrolling.

might be closer to accurate if the 2-5% is his estimate of the physical time spent making key-strokes

Surely we should only count the time actuating the key. Apple keyboard users are in shambles.

Only the keydown, not the keyup.

That's <24 minutes per 8 hour day.

If you're reading this and that matches your experience as an IC SWE whose job is ostensibly developing software.. you're either trapped in a very atypical org, or you're heading for a PIP.

Nope. I would bet most people really only do 2-10%.

But we would like to convince ourselves we don't.

Bingo

Very painful to see Corporate income taxes @ 8%, vs. Personal income taxes @ 36%. on the income pie chart^

However, not at all surprised. That stat would arguably make the most material difference to voters, if only they knew about it.

Edit: Adds another degree of pain when you consider that the CEO-to-worker pay ratio reached 281-to-1 in 2024.

Because U.S. corporations were taxed on a total of gross receipts of roughly $40T, while personal income was taxed on a much tighter pool of roughly $23.9T.