This is 100% going to kill the home built pc market. When I started building gaming pcs, the top top card was 750$ (NZD). Now they’re 10,000 just for the gpu and another 1-2000 for ram.
People used to get into gaming pcs as an affordable hobby, now it’s making general aviation look like plan B.
This has already happened. Home PC market is practically dead already due to memory, ssd and graphics card price inflation. Makers of components like PC cases and power supplies etc. are seeing demand down 30-40% year over year and this is going to put many suppliers out of business. NVDIA has stopped even listing gaming revenue on their earnings reports. Both NVDIA and AMD are not seriously interested in supplying the consumer GPU market anymore either.
The only hope left is really Apple, but even apple has conspicuously delayed the launch of M5-gen mac minis and mac studio. Mostly because even Apple can't source enough DRAM to fully supply all their product lines.
Indeed, Gamers Nexus is doing interviews with PC component manufacturers, and some are hurting bad right now. The PC market is no longer in competition, but rather survival mode. =3
there's much more than triple A video-games running at 240 Hz on Ultra settings... a 200 USD laptop/computer has enough power to run hundreds of interesting indie games and AAA from the past
My 2019 gaming PC is considered unusable ewaste by most pc gamers. The RX5700 XT GPU is super cheap second hand right now and I've been able to play every game I want including new releases like Kingdom Come Deliverance II on great settings with no noticeable issues.
You don't even have to drop down to old indie games. You just have to turn off the FPS counter and stop pixel peeping screenshots.
You can still play fantastic games with amazing gameplay, great storytelling, and even requiring quite a GPU. But you won't upgrade your GPU or RAM. If it gets broken, people have already gotten their money back instead of replacement (whether that is legal or not, depends on your jurisdiction, and regardless: it is happening). So the demand and adoption of say 240 Hz 4k OLED gaming is going to slow. I currently sport two 1440p IPS capable of 144 Hz, with an AMD 6700 XT, 64 GB DDR4, and a 5700X3D. I'll wait upgrading that to a 4k rig.
What I will do is buy a Nintendo Switch 2 before the price increase hits. Why? Great gameplay for kids.
It might kill the console gaming market, too. Typically consoles get cheaper over time post-release. Instead, all the latest gen consoles are getting price hikes and at least one company is potentially pushing back the next gen release (PS6). A PlayStation 5 for $900? I'll just wait and be happy with my perfectly usable Switch 1 (since the 2 is also more expensive than it should be).
Prices haven't risen THAT much and are quite affordable. And if you look at the improved quality of upscalers (DLLS 4.5 for example), gaming is now more affordable than ever, despite the increased cost of components.
Of course, the 5090 prices are insane, as are for SOME memory models, but that's nothing new and represents a fairly small market share.
> When I started building gaming pcs, the top top card was 750$ (NZD)
When I started building gaming PC, the top $700 cards didn't even provide comfortable performance or graphics. Back then, you were supposed to have several of this connected SLI or somethin. And even then, it wasn't always reliable, and it resulted in stuttering, lags, and graphical artifacts (in cases when it worked). Today, even $700 graphics cards are a much better product from a user perspective than the high-end cards of that time (and that's not even taking into account that $700 cards back then were much more expensive).
> When I started building gaming PC, the top $700 cards didn't even provide comfortable performance or graphics.
When would this have been? I can not remember a time this was accurate for the games of the time, outside of a handful of meme titles like the original crysis that made bad hardware bets. Most of them fulfilled the needs of the software and hardware of the time. I'd say the biggest issue was that for a time, software and hardware were advancing so rapidly that you wouldnt get very long out of your hardware, but that's just the reality of rapid development and not the fault or failure of any specific hardware release.
> Back then, you were supposed to have several of this connected SLI or somethin.
SLI was aimed squarely at enthusiasts, not at joe-average PC gamer and it was certainly never a requirement. It existed as a halo feature for people chasing maximum performance, benchmark scores, and bragging rights.
Improved quality used to be the justification for buying new hardware at a similar price to the old hardware when it came out new. Now the 5060/70s are 4 figure cards.
As for how much the prices have actually risen, it’s not hard to see if this is true or not. If doubling of prices doesn’t raise your eyebrows, I’m not sure what will.
Why? Those servers still have to pay the same price for components plus a markup for the service. In theory you can serve more gamers per GPU, but these GPUs have to be physically located in your city to have a usable latency, and that means you'll have issues with peak utilization being most users gaming at the same time of day.
I just don't see the cost savings of sharing a GPU overcoming the extra expense + profit such a service would need.
The GPUs do not have to be "psychically located in your city" to have usable latency.
Of course, less latency is always better although running a traceroute between my IP and major city (Sydney) from 1,500 km equates to about 11ms latency with optimal routing. (Real life test, traceroute via an ISP Looking Glass).
1500km is still largely the same timezone though. To actually get consistent usage of the GPUs you'd want users on the other side of the planet using them while the current side is sleeping/etc.
> Those servers still have to pay the same price for components...
Not if Nvidia is running the service.
Seems quite possible to me that Nvidia sells to the public just enough graphics cards to keep any frisky antitrust investigators off its back and reserves the rest for GeForce NOW, its "pay monthly for limited access to a remote gaming PC" service. The cards for NOW are billed to the BU running NOW at or below cost, the few cards available to consumers and System Integrators naturally have a huge markup due to extremely constrained supply, and Nvidia uses the fact that they are the thing behind the LLM Boom to ensure that they have -what a System Integrator in 2022 would recognize as- a reasonable price for just enough RAM for the computers that NOW rents access to.
Downvoters: notice the speculative nature of the previous paragraph. I'm not claiming that this is happening right now. I'm claiming that it's quite possibly more profitable for Nvidia to bill monthly for limited remote access to computers with Nvidia graphics cards in them than it is to sell those cards at retail and to SIs.
These kinds of conspiracies require everyone to collude, which just about never happens since the reward to defect increases. If nVidia tries this, they would just lose the market to AMD who would spam out as many GPUs to gamers as they could. If both AMD and nVidia teamed up, it would leave a gap that either intel or some Chinese startup would jump on.
It's just far more likely that these GPUs actually do cost a ton to make right now.
> These kinds of conspiracies require everyone to collude...
No, only Nvidia makes and sells Nvidia GPUs. They're the sole supplier of the GPUs used in 95% of the graphics cards sold in the US.
> If both AMD and nVidia teamed up, it would leave a gap that either intel or some Chinese startup would jump on.
Fascinating.
a) Explain why the only even vaguely-recent cheap video cards were made by Intel, and why it looks like Intel has pretty much stopped making video cards? [0]
b) Tell me how that Chinese startup gets past USian Sinophobic/protectionist trade barriers?
c) Tell me how that Chinese startup convinces the big gaming development houses to ignore the advice of Nvidia's driver engineering team that just so happens to make their games work great on the hardware in NOW and really, really poorly on that unknown-to-US-customers Chinese startup?
> It's just far more likely that these GPUs actually do cost a ton to make...
You seem to have not been paying much attention to the reports of Nvidia, AMD, and major RAM and storage suppliers changing focus from the consumer market to the far more profitable datacenter (read as "LLM") market. Several such suppliers have exited the consumer space entirely. As any residential renter in San Francisco [1] can tell you, extremely limited supply drives price up to obscene levels.
[0] This shift in Intel's focus may or may not be related to Nvidia becoming the third- or fourth-largest Intel shareholder.
[1] ...or any other "hot" market with large, artificial barriers to entry...
Not sure the hostility is required here. Gamers don't need nvidia GPUs, they just need GPUs.
Nvidia happens to have been the best option for a long time. But there are many alternatives, game consoles for example aren't particularly tied to the Nvidia/amd market and the ARM space offers tons of options. Apple makes a powerful GPU for their macbooks that isn't dependent on either of the major two.
Valve, Sony, and Nintendo are in a good position to move away from AMD in the future if they aren't providing competitively priced GPUs. Valve has been working on an x86 emulator for ARM for their Steam Frame which would pave the way towards PC games running on ARM chips.
This whole situation is largely like this because demand for hardware spiked rapidly. Processes and production take a long time to change, and no one knows if these prices are long term or if it's going to crash back to normal in a year. If the elevated prices remain for the future, competitors will move in. But they aren't going to develop new products and production in the case where it all crashes back to normal and nvidia continues selling affordable GPUs to gamers.
I just don't see any scenario where nvidia remains the only option while also not selling their GPUs to consumers and requiring them to rent them. By the time that happens the competition would have crushed them.
There's no hostility. I'm of the opinion that you're ignorant of the wider political and economic factors that have lead to us being in the situation under discussion. I know it's uncommon for the younger generations to believe that one can say "You're either ignorant or willfully blinding yourself to the entirety of the situation." as a statement of plain fact rather than an insult, but everyone would be better off if they'd permanently load that possibility into their brains.
Regardless, there's nothing two Internet Nobodies can say or do that will have any meaningful effect on the situation under discussion... so I guess we'll wait and see if -in five or ten years- "market forces" have made it so the overwhelming majority of "P"Cs are Chromebook-esque thin clients that are pretty much exclusively used to access subscription -or ad-laden- SAASes.
It's more likely to kill the AI market. They're overbuilding capacity and most of it is going unused. The upcoming haircut is going to kill a lot of the major players.
They've intentionally crafted an unsustainable business model in an effort to get users in the front door and raise their MAUs. We've seen this story before. We should know precisely where it's headed.
When you consider how much an employee costs, AI makes a ton of sense. Lots of businesses are stacked with staff doing basic data entry / shuffling. Even if it’s 1000usd a month, AI is still a bargain.
When compute poverty hits these big labs it’s all going to be the same. The ping pong tables and drinks fridges disappear.
The only thing they can hope for is to maintain momentum and critical mass long enough to find ways to pay for all this or have Moores law make the average user request become economical.
I've been in one and it's kinda meh? Its fine for what it is, but it's also filled with buggy bizarre issues on a level of VW ID.3 and doesn't match up with even something basic like latest Peugeot models.
Rely on your network. This idea you’re going to email someone you never met and they’re going to agree to wire you 10k is as fanciful as it sounds.
As others have mentioned, it’s a super crowded space and based on my experience and metrics, in the last year has become 4-5x more crowded.
Your offer of 10 free hours sounds great and if you’ve read Alex hormozis books you’re thinking you’re on the right path. 10 hours isn’t free though. It’s 10 hours of my time to support someone who probably has no idea what they’re doing (business wise, I’m sure technically you have skill but that’s not enough.)
Once you’ve got some case studies from people you know. Figure out where the money is and where it’s going. Then give it away for free as lead magnets with value. Charge to do hands on implementation and get your foot in the door there. Make it blatantly obvious you have skills wider than just implementing your lead magnet and look for legitimate opportunities to help their business.
Once you’re at this stage, you can start emailing warm leads.
You need to be likeable, extremely reliable, technical, up to date and be able to deliver value to clients that can afford you.
Lastly, this is an incredibly difficult space to be in. If you don’t have a network that you can rely on to generate leads, you’re sunk. Change tact and focus on the job market.
The good thing is, you probably do have a network, you’ve just never thought of them like that before.
Probably referring to crew rest hours (esp. a problem in the late 2010s, near-misses at DXB etc.
Not having had passenger fatalities is a bad indicator for safety records in the 21st century.
The ek521 report is a good example documenting systemic failures at EK
Well, if not ever having a fatality isn’t good enough, they’re consistently top 10 rated for safety. I just don’t buy ops criticism. It’s fine to not like Dubai, but emirates are provably one of the best airlines.
They got lucky to keep their 0 fatalities, could have easily been 300 if one of their significant near misses went slightly different. Their crew rest rules are dangerous, Middle Eastern crew resource management is much worse than US and EASA, and airline oversight in the region is much less independent. Sure it hasn't gone wrong yet, but with how low the number of fatalities is overall that's a bad metric.
Edit: Just to quote the official investigation on an Emirates fuckup: "The flight crew reliance on automation and lack of training in flying go-arounds from close to the runway significantly affected the flight crew performance in a critical flight situation which was different to that experienced by them during their simulated training flights."
That reflects exactly how the rest of the industry thinks about the gulf carriers and their crews. Combine that with non optimal CRM and you have a disaster waiting to happen. They already did this twice, not understanding automation and (nearly) flying a jet into the ground.
There isn’t a single FAA or EASA airline in the top 5. Maybe they’re just unlucky? And emirates, which has been going since 1985, one of the busiest airlines in the world, still waiting for it to all go wrong. Delusional to try and spin this as ME bad at safety, when Qatar is the other major airline flying the region.
Industry bodies that rate airlines on safety. Last year Emirates, third equal.
The criteria is safety.
No legitimate response has been received, there's no debate here. This isn't some obscure knowledge thing, these ratings come out every year. You can go and look them up, it took me all of 15 seconds to confirm this.
And I'll even go one further, there isn't a single airline in the Americas, Africa or Europe that rates higher than Emirates on safety.
"Safety" is far too nebulous for that to be a criterion. Safety would be a conclusion reached from analyzing other factors.
I'm guessing you're referring to the rankings from airlineratings.com, since their list last year put Emirates tied for third place. They don't appear to be an industry body, or really much of anything. Their rankings get cited all over the place but I can't figure out why, other than it being convenient, and media not really caring about authoritativeness or accuracy. It's just an aviation journalist and a few employees with, as far as I can tell, no real connection to the industry.
Their list doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. They describe their methodology at https://www.airlineratings.com/safety-ratings. The rating is out of seven, with five criteria contributing one or two points each. Very coarse, but reasonable enough. Then they add on a PLUS for airlines that max out the points and also pass an onboard audit focused on safety within the cabin.
"Airlines that already excel in safety and hold a Seven Star safety rating who successfully complete these anonymous audits, conducted over six flights (including a mix of overnight, day, domestic, international, short-haul, and long-haul journeys), will earn special recognition as a Seven Star Plus airline, the highest accolade we now offer."
There's a lot of fluff and very little detail about exactly what these audits entail.
Looking at their full list of ratings, there are five airlines rated Seven Star Plus. Yet there are not five airlines tied for first place. The full list doesn't match their announcement of their top rankings, probably because things have changed since the top rankings were announced. But their methodology doesn't line up with the structure of their list at all. There are 5 airlines rated Seven Star Plus, and an additional 145 airlines rated 7/7. How, then, are they producing a ranked list of 25 that isn't just two sets of ties?
Interesting note in how they evaluate incidents: "We do not deduct stars for accidents caused by terrorism, hijacking, or pilot suicide." I can see why they'd exclude terrorism and hijacking, although I disagree with that choice. But pilot suicide? That's absolutely something that should be included. Pilot evaluation and well-being is completely within the airline's purview.
Long story short, this ranking seems like a bunch of BS.
Hauntingly, they’re actually calling the ME “west asia” now.
In my copy of animal farm, there’s actually a foreword relevant for this discussion. It goes into Orwells difficulty getting things published around ww2 as there was speech that whilst legal was frowned upon during wartime.
> In every case, when you dig deeper, the story is one of two things: either what they built could already be done with standard AI tools (ChatGPT, Claude, any decent LLM with a simple integration), or it’s aspirational
All your use cases are fairly well handled by conventional LLM's. OpenClaw is a security nightmare, so it's probably worth switching away.
OpenClaw was never meant to be a tool that could do things you couldn't do without it.
Also, whenever someone points out you could accomplish something without it, he underestimates the effort needed. In the examples I'm thinking of, someone simply asked OpenClaw to do something, had a few back and forths with it, and it was done. I have yet to see someone say "Oh, I can do that without OpenClaw" and go ahead and do it within 10 minutes.
Not once.
OpenClaw is flawed, but the convenience is an order of magnitude higher than anything else.
> the convenience is an order of magnitude higher than anything else.
You offered nothing to support this. My openclaw is realistically just an agent in discord versus the CLI. That's not an "order of magnitude" more convenient. Anthropic already has a tool for it https://code.claude.com/docs/en/remote-control
You've got it inverted. My point is the people saying "You could have done that just as easily with ..." are the ones not supporting it. The commenter has already built that thing with OpenClaw. If someone is saying it could easily have done without it - well, demonstrate it!
What a bizarre article. The morality of recreational torture is not a matter of factual correctness. Burden of proof is not a concept that makes any sense when there’s a disagreement over morality. You can make arguments for your position and those arguments may involve factual claims which can be proven or disproven, but the underlying morality can’t.
And then it ends with that sudden left turn into denouncing atheists as inherently irrational and evil. WTF?
Congratulations on bringing an argument so terrible that I’m actually more convinced of my position after having read it than I was before.
The difference is I would have to do that myself. It has access to gdrive and cc and does it for me when I send it a message in chat. Sometimes when I’m out I even just send it voicys.
I can have multiple conversations on multiple topics always accessible via different discord channels, all with a shared memory, without that memory being held in a continually degrading context window.
One channel - reminders for medications, and recording my dosage. Another - "research this fancy new tech thing for me". Another - "let's continue work on that side project we started last week". And then in another - "create a dashboard of my meds dosage using that fancy new tech thing we were talking about yesterday". And of course finally "any urgent emails this morning?".
All without finding, creating, or setting up multiple apps or scripts for each individual task. If I have another idea, I just tell it what I want it to do, or ask it how we can make it happen.
Just an example of how I would accomplish them. The obsession with openclaw is generally misguided. The 'magic' is the LLM. I'm running an OC instance on a server in my home, I have experience here.
I think people are just tired of the fire hose of posts that have been showing up since it came out. It’s so annoying. Why does everyone need to pimp it so hard? It’s like your aunt trying to push Herbalife on you every time you see her.
Nothing of what my agents do, we didn’t previously do. But now I can get moderate to good results with a lot less effort. Allowing the business to expand whilst keeping costs controlled.
Nz farmers will milk twice a day, early morning and afternoon. In the middle of the day the cows return to their paddock from the morning. In the evening they’re moved to a new paddock.
Grass consumption is the aim of the game. If you let cows out on a full paddock for the day they’ll partially graze and then starve themselves (relatively speaking) in the afternoon.
This is bad for milk production and also pasture quality for the next rotation.
The solution to this is to set a break, a temporary electric fence in the middle of the paddock. So, they arrive to half a paddock then in the morning the farm worker takes it down for the afternoon and sets it up in the next paddock for the night. Probably takes 30-45 minutes depending on paddock size, weather and enthusiasm of the farm hand.
x2 for 2 herds, 7 days a week for 8 months a year.
Now, my brother just draws a line on a map and it takes care of itself.
This applies well enough with beef. You still want to maximize pasture rotation and quick moves improve feed quality and speeds recovery between grazing.
Source: have 320 Angus/Simmental pairs. Working on an opensource cow collar (agopencollar.com)
People used to get into gaming pcs as an affordable hobby, now it’s making general aviation look like plan B.