That’s why Research in Motion (the developer of the Blackberry) had to buy the domain “rim.jobs” when the .jobs tld was launched.

I don’t think it’d be that simple.

Any given website URL could go viral at any moment. In the old days, that might look like a DDoS that brings down the site (aka the slashdot effect or hug of death), but these days many small sites are hosted on infrastructure that is protected against unexpectedly high traffic.

So if someone hosts deceptive content on their server and it can be viewed by billions, there would be a disconnect between a website’s reach and its accountability (to paraphrase Spider-Man’s Uncle Ben).

The company describes this generator as a solid state device, but the diagrams show the reliance on fluid/flow of hydrogen between the hot side and the cold side for moving some protons around. That seems to be something in between the semiconductor-based solid state thermoelectric generators that are already commonly understood and some kind of generator with moving solid parts.

It still seems like a low maintenance solution to have a closed loop of hydrogen, but that seems like a potential maintenance/failure point, as well, to rely on the chamber to remain filled with hydrogen gas.

The inventor/founder at the center of the article, Lonnie Johnson, was on the team at JPL that designed and implemented the thermoelectric generators (heated by radioactive decay from plutonium-238 pellets) on the Galileo spacecraft sent to Jupiter. So I would expect that he’s more familiar with the thermodynamic and engineering challenges than even a typical expert.

The PR fluff put out by the company mentions that the theoretical basis for this specific type of generator was worked out a while ago but needed materials science to advance to the point where this type of generator can be thermodynamically and commercially feasible.

Looking at how this generator is supposed to work, it’s interesting in that it does rely on the movement of fluid, but is supposed to be a totally closed loop, to be a bit different than the pure solid state, semiconductor-based Seebeck generators that are already well known.

The other area talked about in this article is that they believe that it can be effective with lower temperature differentials than any previous technology, which might make a huge difference in whether it can be deployed to more useful places and thereby make it economically feasible more easily than prior concepts.

In the end, if these generators can output some electric voltage/current, it might just take on similar generation characteristics as photovoltaics, which could mean that hooking these up to the grid could draw on some of the lessons learned from the rise of grid scale solar.

Financial analysts were sounding the alarm in October. On October 7, Bloomberg ran an influential article about the circular deals:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2025-10-07/openai-s-nvidia-amd-deals-boost-1-trillion-ai-boom-with-circular-deals

That built on earlier reporting where they described the deals as circular, as the deals were being announced. Each of these reports notes the financial analysts at different investment firms sounding the alarm.

From there, a robust discussion happened all over the financial press about whether these circular deals were truly unstable. By the time Gamers Nexus ran that video the financial press was already kinda getting sick of the story.

Whatever the hell these trading algorithms were doing on November 20, they definitely weren’t ahead of the curve on investor knowledge and belief.

it’s like AI companies went from buying 10 memories as usual to 1000000,

I mean, they basically did. OpenAI announced a few months ago that they reached deals to buy 900,000 wafers of DRAM per month, representing 40% of global production capacity. For a single company. There are several other companies competing at those scales, too.

Plenty of the AI functions on phones are on-device. I know the iPhone is capable of several text-based processing (summarizing, translating) offline, and they have an API for third party developers to use on-device models. And the Pixels have Gemini Nano on-device for certain offline functions.

but I don’t think most are designed to control people’s opinions

Yeah I’m on team chaos theory. People can plan and design shit all they want, but the complexity will lead to unexpected behavior, always. How harmful that unwanted behavior is, or how easy it is to control or contain, is often unknown in advance, but invented things tend to develop far, far outside the initial vision of the creators.

You have to expect that OP, who is well established in his field, to compare accordingly, not with average pay of 1990.

I’m talking about a number that is 1.4x the 95th percentile generally. It’d be weird to assume that programmers were getting paid that much more than doctors and lawyers and bankers.

According to this survey series, median IEEE members were making about $58k (which was also the average for 35-year-olds in the survey. Electrical engineering is a closely related discipline to programming.

So yeah, an $81k salary was really, really high in 1990. I suspect the original comment was thinking of the 90’s in general, and chose a salary from later in the decade while running the inflation numbers back to 1990, using the wrong conversion factor for inflation.

Edited to add: this Bureau of Labor Statistics publication summarizes salaries by several professions and experience levels as of March 1990. The most senior programmers were making around $34k, the most senior systems analysts were making about $69k, and the most senior managers, who could fairly be described as executives, were making about $88k.

Were people getting paid $81k in 1990? This site shows that 95th percentile in 1990 was $58k, and doesn’t have more granular data than that above the 95th percentile. So someone making $81k was definitely a 5 percenter, maybe even a 2 percenter.