Can we please stop giving weight to CEOs talking their book? Like of course IBM wants you to think this, it would be great for them if it’s true. And maybe it is true! But IBM’s CEO saying it’s true tells me just as much as if a frontier lab said it’s not: nothing.
It was a brilliant move at the time for IBM, and has helped them shift their business more into providing services and support.
I imagine they are panicking a little with LLMs reducing the reliance on external companies for software support, so they are really hoping to shift it to on-prem AI, which is where the bias in his statement comes from.
> “The reason, in this case, not to pursue litigation is that the conduct had already been resolved, right?” [U.S. Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward Jr.] went on, referencing the decline in egg prices.
They stopped this particular instance of it after the horse already left the barn and did nothing to dissuade future anticompetitive collusion.
I do not want to rain on your parade, but I find attempts to impose a coherent timeline on Zelda miss the opportunity to engage with it as a legend, a story told over and over with certain essential parts but many changing interpretations. How our very familiarity with the story creates the opportunity for surprise. There are so many fictional worlds with sprawling lore, and so few that engage with the retelling of stories and myths like Zelda does.
The games we are playing aren't retellings of the same story though. There are numerous sequels for one. Second the concept of a timeline isn't just in Hyrule Historia, it's referenced in the games themselves; for example the hero of time in Twilight Princess and Breath of the Wild.
It's loose, but it's there. These are separate stories, retold many times or not, and the cyclic nature of the battle for the triforce is established game lore.
I believe it's also misleading to say Nintendo doesn't care about the timeline stuff. They care but also make a conscious decision to keep it light and not overly bound or caught up in it.
This is what I mean. The cyclic nature of the battle in game lore is itself the series engaging with the concept of legend. The characters and the player both have a vague concept of the legend but not its exact contours this time around.
Eh, even before 2011 with the official timeline and the Skyward Sword prequel-to-all-games, there was plenty of textual content to support a timeline.
AoL was a sequel to LoZ. ALttP was a prequel to LoZ. LA was a sequel to ALttP.
OoT is explicitly a prequel to ALttP.
OoT splits into at least two timelines. MM explicitly follows the child Link who preempted Ganon's ascension. WW explicitly has you fight the Ganon defeated by adult Link. TP explicitly places itself as a sequel to the "child timeline" and so also a sequel to MM.
The only games which lacked an explicit placement to the rest were the Four Swords series and the Oracle games. Not small exceptions, but exceptions none the less, and that's only if you ignore interviews. (And interviews would give you Minish Cap preceding Four Swords preceding Ocarina of Time.)
"The rating action, which has not previously been reported, shows Anthropic is close to achieving the investment-grade status that would allow the start-up to lower its borrowing costs and tap a wider pool of institutional investors including life insurance companies and pension funds.
Bankers for Anthropic and rival OpenAI have lobbied the largest rating agencies to grant the AI labs investment-grade ratings once they go public."
The fact that the only rating published is ‘junk’, and that it was from a small agency tells us quite a lot. Given the fact that Anthropic (or its representatives) likely ‘shopped’ for a rating means that this was the best anyone was willing to give them, and that the larger agencies probably refused to rate them without more information. I would have been surprised if the bankers hadn’t lobbied for the highest rating possible, as higher ratings increase their profits from the IPO.
The whole point is to slowly build credibility, starting with easily $wayed small ratings entities, then launder that credibility into a slightly larger one, rise and repeat until financial disaster.
reply