addicted

The FBI.

The FBI was out for MLK.

In his first term Trump liked the FBI so he allowed them to redact the JFK files he was legally supposed to release to the public.

But in 2025 they’re his bogey man so releasing it so Kash Patel has an even easier time remolding it in his image makes a lot of sense.

Agreed. Trump should never have allowed the redaction of rhe JFK files in 2017 when he was legally bound to release them In the first place.

Yeah, the all so powerful IMF that can be thwarted by the incredibly difficult task of…checks notes….

not taking loans from them…

The IMF (or its donor nations) aren’t forcing anyone to take loans from them. Countries do that because the IMF offers much cheaper rates they can get anywhere else and is willing to forgive those loans far more easily than any other entity.

In return it expects certain good governance changes that are stated upfront as conditions to receive the loans you could very well get from anywhere else in the world.

Don’t like what they consider good governance? Don’t take a loan from them. Go get in the private market or the variety of nations willing to lend at far more onerous terms.

Relevantly, the plant is about to close down because photovoltaics have become so much cheaper than concentrated solar.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/11-years-after-celebrate...

ByteDance apps are not banned.

ByteDance had an opportunity to sell TikTok to any company that isn’t based out of an enemy country that is known to have taken actions against the U.S. and its citizens.

Which cabinet position was Musk appointed to? (In fact, in the U.S. the president doesn’t appoint cabinet members, but sure, you don’t understand the basics of how the govt works but you know what fascism is better than experts who’ve studied and written about it for decades).

Is Musk the head of the OPM?

Also, policy cannot break the law and certainly cannot break the constitution. That is fascism. The executive doesn’t get to rewrite laws and the constitution.

This is just completely untrue.

It’s possible social media could have killed Reader.

But Reader died because Google killed anything that wasn’t directly contributing to Google+, and Reader was competition to Google+.

Also, I doubt Reader would have lost to social media. If Reader had stuck around it would most likely have been a Twitter alternative.

That’s not how I remember Reader at all.

I never used the web interface.

Google Reader provided syncing for nearly every 3rd party RSS app.

It wasn’t just a walled garden. It was also critical infrastructure for most RSS apps at the time.

The obvious answer is that this user likely also comments on other platforms that do not allow using the word openly and instead of the mental overload of constantly deciding which site does and doesn’t allow spelling out the word they choose the safer option in every case.

Or their autocorrect has now learnt to respell it anyways.

Or, they didn’t really spend hours debating the pros and cons of using either spelling and just went with whatever felt ok at the time.

But why choose generosity when one can choose snarky ass instead.

Why don’t you identify all these easily found regulations then?

There’s a whole YIMBY movement, for example, that has identified specific regulations that are no longer valid and have made tremendous strides in proving and changing these regulations for almost universally better outcomes.

So where are all these specific regulations that are so terrible and the evidence that they are indeed net negatives.

I absolutely believe such regulations exist. But that’s not what these people care about. They simply care about trashing the govt to make it easier to drown, otherwise they would actually act like the YIMBY movement and identify specific regulations and work on changing those.

I’m curious, how many people in your business were elected to their jobs?

Do you think people should be electing the ATC agents?

Also, what’s your opinion about the entire cabinet, Elon Musk, and the likes, all of whom are also unelected?

OpenAI itself has argued, to the degree that your analogy applies, that if the goal of stealing the laptop is to train AI then the answer is Yes.

They probably did to access the NYTimes articles.

You don’t need a citation.

You just need to read OpenAI’s arguments about why TOS and copyright laws don’t apply to them when they’re training on other people’s copyrighted and TOS protected data and running roughshod over every legal protection.

The idea that someone can easily replicate an OpenAI model based simply on OpenAI outputs is, I’d argue, immeasurably worse for OpenAI’s valuation than the idea that someone happened to come up with a few innovations that leapfrogged OpenAI.

The latter could be a one time thing, and/or OpenAi Could still use their financial might to leverage those innovations and get even better with them.

However, the former destroys their business model and no amount of intelligence and innovation from OpenAI protects them from being copied at a fraction of the cost.

The idea that there was “necessarily a first reasoning being” is neither obvious nor likely.

Reasoning could very well have originally been an emergent property of a group of beings.

The animal kingdom is full of examples of groups being more intelligent than individuals, including in human animals as of today.

It’s entirely possible that reasoning emerged as a property of a group before it emerged in any individual first.

This is an incomplete version of OpenAI’s point of view.

OpenAI has a legally submitted point of view that they believe the benefits of AI to humanity are so great that anyone creating AI should be allowed to trample all over copyright laws, Terms of Use, EULAs, etc.

But OpenAI’s version of benefit to humanity is that they should be allowed to trample over those laws so they can benefit humanity by closely guarding the output of trampling those laws and charging humanity an access fee.

Even if we accept all of OpenAI’s criticisms of DeepSeek, they’re arguing that DeepSeek doing the exact same thing, but releasing the output for free for anyone to use is somehow less beneficial to humanity.

It still doesn’t justify their valuation because it shows that their product is unprotectable.

In fact, I’d argue this is even worse, because no matter how much OpenAI improves their product, and Altman is prancing around claiming to need $7Trillion to improve their product, someone else can replicate it for a few million.

It’s even worse because OpenAI took all that information and put it behind a paywall they want to make tons of money with.

DeepSeek open sourced it so all of humanity can actually benefit from it.

Nothing to see here. It’s just Oxalate dumping.

/s

The team may not have too many PHDs but they are from prestigious universities and have published many papers.

The lack of a PhD probably has more to do with the structure of Chinese education but these people were basically studying like PHDs.

https://www.firstpost.com/explainers/china-deepseek-ai-full-...

Space really isn’t that scarce.

Library books solely as interior design is still better than 99% of the decorative architecture campuses are covered in that use up orders of magnitude more space.

Most people don’t get jitters when drinking coffee?

I can’t drink coffee because the caffeine affects me terribly but that’s not true for most people.

The headline correctly says they deleted an asteroid because it wasn’t an asteroid.

That says nothing about whether or not they continued tracking the object as “not an asteroid”.

The point is that this was developed outside of OpenAI.

So the real question is why does anyone believe that OpenAI will bring AGI when actual innovation was happening in some hedge fund in China while OpenAI was going on an international tour trying to drum up a trillion dollars.

And the opportunity for a shit ton of lawsuits.

Source code like this doesn’t just have no value for Google. It has negative value. It’s a massive liability.

That’s why big cos simply bury source code instead of releasing it in the open.

What you are missing is that it turns out the gold isn’t actually gold. It’s bronze.

So earliest, the shovelers were willing to spend thousands of dollars for a single shovel because they were expecting to get much more valuable gold out the other end.

But now that it’s only bronze, they can’t spend that much money on their tools anymore to make their venture profitable. A lot of shovelers are gonna drop out of the race. And the ones that remain will not be willing to spend as much.

The fact that there isn’t that much money to be made in AI anymore means that whatever percentage of money would have gone to NVIDIA from the total money to be made in AI will now shrink dramatically.

One only needs to look as far back as the first Trump administration to see that Trump only cares about the announcement and doesn’t care about what’s actually done.

And if you don’t want to look that far just lookup what his #1 donor Musk said…there is no actual $500Bn.

They aren’t even not the best. They’re well below par.

For example, Gruber shows that Apple Intelligence which uses ChatGPT, will give the wrong answers for questions which ChatGPT itself is right 100% of the time.

It requires effort to be that bad.

Did anyone gush about it at any point though.

Siri is probably one of the most, rightfully, panned product of all time.

Even the day it was released it was panned because it was a gimped version of the app Apple had bought from the App Store.

I don’t think it’s reached parity with the original 3rd party Siri to date (I believe you could, for example, buy movie tickets with the original Siri, which the Apple Siri hasn't ever been capable of doing).