addicted

Are the Chinese carrying out espionage in the U.S.?

Yes.

But Indoubt China’s key AI CEOs that need to be warned not to travel to the U.S. will be the ones doing espionage for the Chinese government. If they were, then the govt wouldn’t need to announce not traveling publicly…they’d just pass on the message through their handlers.

The point is that the Chinese (and now, even allies) governments would be justified in thinking that the U.S. despite its reputation for a fair legal system, will arrest or detain a Chinese citizen for no legitimate reason at all.

Is the opposite also true? Should the US government be warning its AI CEOs not to travel to China? Absolutely.

But it’s disappointing that the US’s reputation has fallen so far over the past decade.

Without getting into the politics of all this, what’s the point of being a centibillionaire when you have to suck up to Donald Trump in a way 99.999% of the people in this country don’t need to.

To his credit, at least Musk owns Trump. The likes of Bezos and Zuck are just sad, sad figures, who have so much money and yet so little agency.

Unsurprising considering the U.S. has been arresting and imprisoning Chinese and American academics with highly prestigious positions in well known universities because they forgot to mention a conference in China they were paid to speak at a decade ago.

The problem with marking answers “obsolete” is that many code bases are old. You need those answers.

Similarly, wearing a seatbelt on your way to assassinate somebody.

> For example, for a unified European army, either France, Germany, or Sweden is going to have to sacrifice their aerospace giants because Dassault, Eurofighter, and Saab compete directly and ferociously, and always undercut each other. And for tanks, Germany has to either sacrifice the entire chain for Leopold or France has to sacrifice the entire chain for Leclerc.

This is absolutely correct. That’s why the common EU military cannot be an EU equivalent of the U.S. military.

However, the EU itself is a novel and unique structure that was invented out of thin air. A common EU policy would also have to be a completely new model. One that’s closer to NATO but also has an actual common command with actual teeth that can call upon its French or German division to take certain steps that those divisions cannot refuse.

Yup. The problem with democracies in the West is that they keep trying to make unsustainable places sustainable.

China essentially says “here’s where all the talent is and where the talent is willing to move to…let’s focus there”.

Because of policy reasons Texas, for example, has been able to kind of grow, but it would be much better if the likes of California and New York fixed their bad policies so they could grow instead, as the potential is much greater.

How does MS ToDo compare to Wunderlist.

It’s supposed to be the successor developed by the same team.

Skype for Business, which was really just a rebranding of Microsoft Lync, destroyed the Skype brand.

But it also indirectly damaged both variations.

Skype for Business became less of a “business” software like Lync was. So unlike Lync, which was fairly spartan but information dense, Skype for Business added a ton of white space, colors, icons, etc making it less efficient and less serious than Lync.

At the same time, Skype itself became purely consumer and went way down that route, focusing more on Temu like animation gimmicks than actually being a communication tool for friends and families.

They could have done this on literally any date and your question would apply.

Usually the answer is something really mundane. They did a privacy policy review and realized a couple of their core fewtures break the policy.

Or someone new joined the team who had an interest in their privacy policy and realized it contradicts.

There could be a thousand mundane reasons for why now.

> That's ridiculous though. Performing a search is taking text I entered, concatenating it to a URL and opening that. Nowhere in that process does Mozilla need to know about what is happening in the local browser of the user.

Every browser I’ve used in the past decade does “search as you type” by default. That does require local access to your browser and your key strokes.

Normal people wouldn’t use a browser that didn’t do search as you type.

Let’s run some numbers for the bottom half.

I don’t know what they mean by income data, but let’s use the GDP as a proxy.

2025 GDP (Current USD) - $3.5Tn (actually 2023, but it’s probably still close) Population - 1.45Bn Bottom Half Population - 725mm Bottom Half share - 15% Bottom half share of GDP - $525Bn Bottom half GDP per capita - $725

1990 GDP (current USD) - $320Bn Population - 870mm Bottom Half population - 435mm Bottom Half Share - 22.2% Bottom Half Share of GDP - $71Bn Bottom Half GDP per capita - $163

So the bottom half per capita GDP in current USD has risen from $163 to $725, almost a 4.5x increase.

The increase in inequality is not good, but this isn’t the economic catastrophe for India’s poor that this article is presenting it as. In fact, a 4.5x increase in per capita income in 35 years is a significant achievement for a country of Indias size and diversity. It of course pales in comparison to what China has achieved, but what doesn’t pale in comparison to what China has achieved.

So you believe there’s a bloated administrative and managerial class that spends money on wasteful things while constantly cutting money on useful things.

Let’s accept that without argument.

What makes you think that the exact same bloated administrative class which prioritized useless things and defunded useful things when revenues were increasing will choose to suddenly prioritize useful things when revenues are decreasing?

Wouldn’t the predictable response of the bloated managerial class would be to continue with the same priorities and further cut useful activities making useless activities an even greater proportion of spending?

Given the argument you’re making, wouldn’t the solution be to pass laws or executive orders that instead provided incentives to spend money on useful things?

Yet one of the 2 actions, the endowment tax, is agnostic and doesn’t change incentives at all, and the other targets research which is easily the most directly valuable output of the U.S. university system, therefore further tilting the money away from the useful spending and therefore proportionally more towards useless spending.

While I agree age discrimination in tech is a huge problem, it’s hardly true that it hasn’t received attention.

Age discrimination has been one of the few successful discrimination based lawsuits that have been brought against companies in the tech world.

The same is true of the private sector. Every dollar spent came from someone’s pocket through consumer spending.

By your logic the only jobs that can be created is by deficit spending, and since the private sector cannot create money, but the government can, the implication is that only the federal government can create jobs.

I didn’t realize TSMC, Intel, GlobalFoundry, Micron etc were owned by the government.

> Probably an unpopular opinion, but defending Taiwan was always a bluff. Americans aren’t going to die en masse over some random island in the pacific.

This is such a funny comment because it’s both right and oh so wrong.

Yes, the U.S. was likely never gonna send troops to fight in Taiwan (although it has sent troops to fight in Korea, so it’s not as much of a stretch as you claim).

But the bluff worked because the U.S.’s promises held value. To the point that the U.S. didn’t explicitly say they would defend Taiwan against China, but China was avoiding confrontation with Taiwan simply to prevent the U.S. from saying they would do that.

Of course, Donald Trump damaged that significantly in his first term and has torn that to shreds in his second term.

With Trump’s nakedly transparent and quod pro quo based foreign affairs, it’s hard to remember how much soft power value the U.S. had built up over decades where it could achieve what it wanted without even saying anything, which has basically been destroyed over about a decade.

Why would Apple repatriate their cash and pay any taxes?

I don’t understand why they would care to move the money out of the countries where they earned that money and are likely to be expanding more than they are in the U.S. anyways.

Because it’s a lot easier to make up shit than to create stuff that is vetted?

Also there are videos made by historians or science educators.

Of the top of my head I can think of Flint Dibble who is an paleontologist? and miniminuteman who is a science communicator who also has an archeology degree?

And while both of them have decent to great success on YouTube, their success pales in comparison to the Ancient Aliens and Atlantis video makers, simply because those are more attractive stories even if they’re not real, but are presented as legitimate theories.

> The “it’s just art bro, don’t take it so seriously” excuse is so tired

There’s nothing wrong with it as long as they’re not presenting it as history but are presenting it as the work of fiction it is.

Unfortunately they’ll, at best, have fine print that says it’s not history but the whole presentation is supposed to encourage the viewers to believe this ks real.

I think this is a level of security Apple is providing at additional cost to themselves that only a tiny fraction of consumers would even pay an extra cent for.

From that perspective I really appreciate this effort by Apple.

How does one go from a hung jury with a single juror convicting to a unanimous conviction with a death sentence?

Also, isn’t this double jeopardy?

The irony of course is that Johnson has already stated all of these things.

He consistently points out that he’s an n of 1, but since these experiments cannot be ethically performed on greater numbers of people the n = 1 is a start.

However, it’s very likely he will do things that will indeed hurt his health.

He’s also stated several times that he’s much more likely to die of something extremely mundane.

Finally, it’s a bit presumptuous of you to state he’s excluded simple pleasures from his life. He enjoys himself far more than he did earlier when he wasn’t healthier, and most importantly, has repaired relationships with both his father and his son. He considers being a dad the most important and enjoyable part of his life.

All of this may be bullshit, but unless one has evidence of it being bullshit, it’s pretty clear that he at least appears to understand what simple pleasures in life are better than most people and claims to be able to enjoy them more than most other people, and most jnportantly, more than he did when he hadn’t started on this journey.

An ordinary person with decent credit would not pay 10% on a loan.

A reasonably rich person with good credit is paying nowhere near that.

And a very rich person with great credit and who will put their assets up as collateral is paying low single digits in interest, if even.

Twitter’s valuation has plummeted since Elon’s purchase.

And to the extent Twitter is still limping along it’s because Twitter due to its very nature benefits immensely from the stickiness of social networks.

For example, Facebook is almost completely junk. It hasn’t improved or been relevant in a long time. And yet it survives and makes tons of money simply because people don’t want to rebuild their networks.

There are many other examples where even minor cuts have been devastating. The classic example is of course GE, the ultimate example of cutting a company to the bone, which worked for a decade or so, but set the company up to essentially cease to exist after.

Then you have Boeing, a company in an industry with less competition than probably any other in the world and it’s struggling to make money because of this thinking.

I’m not part of academia but was heavily involved in funding because of my position in student government while still in college.

While I won’t argue there isn’t waste (what endeavor doesn’t have waste?) it’s an incredibly tiny percentage (except in cases where there was actual fraud, which we also discovered and the Feds prosecuted and convicted people for).

The irony is that academia is so afraid of “waste” that I wouldn’t be surprised if colleges spend more money on the auditing and the compliances, etc than the actual waste they prevent.

The “overhead” isn’t even overhead as most people understand it.

But the real question is why does the general public think 59% is too high? Irs an arbitrary number. Maybe an appropriate level of “overhead” is 1000%.

In reality the people who actually know anything about how this is calculated, across the board and across the political spectrum, do not think this is a major concern at all.

The only people who are complaining about it are the ones who hear the word overhead, have no concept of what it means other than taking a lay persons understanding that all overhead is unnecessary and are coming with the idea that anything above 0% is bad.

Unfortunately American white collar workers responded to the brief period of relative power increase by pushing for remote work rather than consolidating that power or asking for better pay.

We are seeing the results now with white collar work being outsourced to countries in LATAM. If people aren’t gonna be physically collocated why pay more for someone to work from the U.S. when you can pay a fraction for someone to work in the same time zone in central and South America.

I strongly suspect we will Look back at this period similarly to how we look back at the 80s when blue collar workers voted to have their jobs outsource to China, except this time it’s white collar workers pushing to essentially make their jobs easier to outsource to the rest of the world.

Your criticism is completely pointless.

I’m not sure what your expectation is, but even your claim about the assumption the paper makes is incorrect.

For one thing, the paper assumes that the amount that will be transferred from the human lawyer to the AI lawyer would be $500 + the productivity gains brought by AI, so more than 100%.

But that is irrelevant to the actual paper. You can apply whatever multiplier you want as long as the assumption that human labor will be replaced by AI labor holds true.

Because the actual nature of the future is irrelevant to the question the paper is answering.

The question the paper is answering is what impact such expectations of the future would have on today’s economy (limited to modeling the interest rate). Such a future need not arrive or even be possible as long as there is an expectation it may happen.

And future papers can model different variations on those expectations (so, for example, some may model that 20% of labor in the future will still be human, etc).

The important point as far as the paper is concerned is that the expectations of AI replacing human labor and some percentage of the wealth that was going to the human labor now accrues to the owner of the AI will lead to significant changes to current interest rates.

This is extremely useful and valuable information to model.

No, that isn’t a “commons”. And a commons in terms of the “tragedy of commons” isn’t well defined either. And the “tragedy of the commons” isn’t well supported either.

For example, sunlight. Sunlight delivers huge value to society but profit to no one. According to your claims that is a “commons”. And according to your theory unless a government manages sunlight it will always result in a “tragedy of commons”.

But we can even extend this to human created stuff. Especially scientific and mathematical knowledge. Lots of knowledge has been created that benefits everyone but does not deliver profit to anyone. For example calculating the area of a rectangle or a triangle.

These things still fit your definition of a “commons” being things that “deliver huge value to society but no profit to anyone”.