Before this I thought it was impossible to surpass Perl.

The problem is that the EU politicians do not want the think about the problem. They want to outsource it and make someone else to pay it.

But there is no solution. Any censorship is always subjective.

Also trusted flaggers bans cannot be disputed easily. Meta rather just takes whatever trusted flaggers have flagged, real or not, and it is not their problem. It is a problem between the EU citizen and anonymous trusted flagged with no accountability.

The next step is of course corrupted trusted flaggers who can take down business pages, whatever, for a payment.

In HW accelerated chips, what part of the calculations they usually accelerate? Could it be possible to repurpose old HW?

Essentially all of the processing of the video data, barring the container format which the CPU uses to know what part of the data to send to the GPU or the Audio chip or codec.

And HW acceleration is generally a preset baked in version of the encoder or decoder. These are mostly codec specific.

So, no using hardware from previous versions.

Now, you can see some software that tries to use the GPU itself, instead of the dedicated hardware acceleration, to decode, but that isn't the HW accelerated, and may not operate in real time.

At the same time, that will consume much more power, eliminating some of the advantages or the pure HW rendition, especially important for mobile.

I could see an argument being made for encoding, if it is 2x or faster than the CPU, but I haven't looked at any in a while, so don't know the speeds.

One of the biggest gains of having dedicated hardware is that the computation doesn’t happen on the general hardware.

This is what makes it viable on mobile devices where system responsiveness and power efficiency are high priority.

Generally these hardware decoders haven’t been retoolalble.

Typically things like quantization and motion estimation.

How it achieves the performance? What is the tradeoff?

Holding a consumer liable for the broken crap they order would be just, but political infeasible as long as there is someone else to blame.

Why even have consumer laws then if consumers are punished if their Samsung phone explodes?

It depends if Samsung is imported by a consumer or a company that takes liability

So pretty much just pay for the stamp from a shell company that will shield the legal risk? So just more expensive for consumers and more profit for lawyers that can just set up single purpose shell companies to sign off on the import?

Doesn't Bezos have Trump ties?

Amazon has acquired several companies that were originally funded by In-Q-Tel, the CIA's venture capital front. This is pretty common in the tech industry. Some major tech companies, such as Palantir, were In-Q-Tel startups, and some began as CIA projects before In-Q-Tel was founded (Oracle).

Even if it fails maybe you can get some political scores in the process to get elected again.

At this stage, was Microsoft already a well-established company if they had money and resources to contract and then license the 86-DOS?

Yes, Microsoft had established themselves as supplier of BASIC interpreters to most of the US microcomputer manufacturers. There initial contact with IBM was to provide a version of Microsoft BASIC for the new computer.

It's Hawthorne effect

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawthorne_effect

Related to it we have novelty effect and bunch of other psychological effects that are hard to isolate in human science. In this sector, a lot of studies cannot be repeated.

The company name is aislop in reverse. Because it reads like parody, it is likely parody. It would be sad if smart people on Hacker News fall for this, not to mention AI hating journalists and bloggers.

But let's give the VCs of the round the benefit of doubt, and hope the raise is tied to KPIs and long term value creation.

We live in ridiculous times. Maybe being a parody is long term value creation and worth $30M from VCs.

Is it possible that VC decision makers just don't care to much at the moment? Do they have big incentives to have "Invested in 37 AI companies" on their power point slides or something similar?

Will somebody ask question about 10 Million spent later on? Would be curious how that works. My guess would be that only the overall result counts, so if you happen to increase the 1 billion (by whatever metric used) enough, nobody will care about "some dozen millions" spent on some non performing companies.

Maybe that's totally wrong. At least I know a guy working at internal revision at a bank and 1 Million missing from the books is a big deal there.

I do realize that the head line is misleading and nobody spent millions on this particular company. From what I have heard over the years such things do happen, though.