The train is already derailing. The thing that no AI evangelists ever acknowledge is that the field has not solved its original questions. Minsky's work on neural networks is still relevant more then half a century later. What this looks like from the ground is that exponential growth of computing power fuels only linear growth of AI. That makes resources and costs spiral out incredibly fast. You can see that in the costs: every AI player out there has a 200 plus dollar tier and still loses money. That linear growth is why every couple decades theres a hype cycle as society checks back in to see how its going and is impressed by the gains, but that sustain just cant last because it can't keep up with the expected growth in capabilities.
Growth at a level it can't sustain and can't be backed by actual jumps in capabilities has a name: A bubble. What's coming is dot-com crash 2.0
AI has been around for 60+ years. SAIL, the Stanford AI Laboratory is one of the most important centers of early hacker culture. Knuth spent his time there. Both Cisco and Sun were founded by SAIL alumni.
Unless you're wanting to rewind the clock to the Berlin airlift we aren't going back to a world before AI. But I do think this absurd bubble is going to pop. Generative AI is crap. It's code is crap. It's images are crap. I say this as someone who has been self-employed for 2 years now in AI. The fact that its so hard to get usable results from generative AI that I can just get over the line into six figures of yearly income because I can massage it into doing something just passable enough to work for people is probably its biggest indictment.
Not only does Facebook have Messenger, but it's actually a (pretty) good privacy option. It went full on default end-to-end encrypted a couple years ago. Telegram doesn't do that, you have to jump through some hoops. Signal does but it's honestly pretty niche. Everyone from your grandma to your kids has Facebook though and somehow Zuckerberg decided his data-Hoover shouldn't extend to everyone's conversations. It's surprisingly good.
To be fair the capsule caught fire in a ground test once with three lives lost (Apollo 1) and the command module had an explosion in space once (Apollo 13) with no loss of life but it was a close thing.
I do agree with your larger point though. SpaceX just feels so much less impressive then previous major rockets, and that's only reinforced when they try and celebrate minor milestones like its supposed to be the greatest achievement ever. As if they want a cookie. Blue Origin has the same issue where they want acknowledgement for minor progress. Its only slightly less annoying because they make less of a deal about it, but this problem permeates the new space race/billionaire toys parade.
> SpaceX just feels so much less impressive then previous major rockets
That's a you problem.
> and that's only reinforced when they try and celebrate minor milestones like its supposed to be the greatest achievement ever
Again that's a you problem.
And if they are 'minor' is very much up for interpretation.
> Blue Origin has the same issue where they want acknowledgement for minor progress.
You are seriously comparing a company that has launched nothing to orbit with the company that has launch more to orbit then anybody else, including the largest object ever.
On what metric is this a "minor milestone"? They just successfully hoisted the largest rocket ever made into orbit, and unlike the Saturn V this will be fully reusable.
I wasn't yet alive during the Apollo launches, so I can't directly compare, but I for one feel these launches (today's included) are extremely impressive and am very happy to celebrate the "minor" milestones with them.
To add to that, your lawyer is bound by both professional, enforceable ethical guidelines as well as legal doctrine from revealing anything you've said to them in the course of their representation of you without your express consent. The number of exceptions to that is tiny. The only one that really matters is crime/fraud which relates not to your crime but using a lawyer to commit a crime. The others are either after you're dead (probate exception, where your lawyer can disclose information for the purposes of helping settle your will after your death) or are exclusively about money (your lawyer can disclose details of your agreed upon contract and payment structure if they are having to fight you to be paid).
There is zero reason to lie to your lawyer, all you do is make them less prepared in their defense.
That's only Pi-like in the sense of being an SBC, unlike the Pi it's meant to be an evaluation/reference platform for integrators who want to build their own board around the SOC, not something you would buy to use for its own sake.
But maybe they could make it more Pi-like, that is pricing it so that it can interest both integrators and hobbyists, with a bootloader that makes it easy to tinker with the OS (not necessarily the firmware).
Broadcom is the counterpart to Qualcomm in that comparison, and those two have similar attitudes towards the hobbyist/enthusiast market - they don't care in the slightest. It took a entity outside of Broadcom which nonetheless had deep connections to them (Eben Upton was there prior to starting RPi) in order to broker a compromise where the Pi could happen, and even then Broadcom kept most of the documentation tied up in NDAs and the bare SOCs not available for sale to the general public.
The Raspberry Pi is an anomaly that's unlikely to be replicated.
And this is where they fail - the people who gets their boards have almost zero interest in upstreaming whatever hardware enablement they do to make the boards sort of work for their specific use cases.
I really don't think undercutting their evaluation board business with affordable SBCs would hurt their bottom line.
The people who buy those eval boards probably aren't even allowed to upstream whatever they do with it, they'll have signed an NDA with Qualcomm to get access to the documentation.
It works at least well enough to build a working FreeBSD kernel, as the article notes that was built and then booted as a test. I have to imagine if the thing can build that its doing pretty well. That isn't a trivial piece of software. Makes me suspect any teething issues will be sorted and that it's not fundamentally compromised.
This strikes me as similar to the Web Colors that used to be important. They had a selection of a couple dozen colors that were safe to use and would display correctly on basically the entire gamut of systems, browsers and color depths of the time in the 90s, and developers were... highly encouraged... to pick from them.
One of the big differences though is iOS apps can only be provided by Apple. If the google store policies restrict you, you're free to distribute the app yourself. There are well known examples of this. Telegram from the play store blocks adult content its aware of. They also distribute an APK on their website without that if you want it.
Growth at a level it can't sustain and can't be backed by actual jumps in capabilities has a name: A bubble. What's coming is dot-com crash 2.0