Weird, maybe it's specific to your launcher? My searches from the -1 page of the launcher don't appear in Gemini, and the ones from the bottom corner swipe to search or OK Google don't appear in AI mode.
> First thing there that got me was that all of my Google searches. Why? I googled "snoop dog real name". Why is this considered a gemini chat now?
It isn't - it's probably an _assistant_ query? In fact the Gemini and Search orgs are cartoonishly at loggerheads; both developing more or less the same product (http://gemini.google.com vs http://google.ai).
TBH they are smart enough for me; I want more speed and more initiative (e.g. my Opus one shot should not have terrible perf that it can itself fix with a simple prompt "it's OOMing, fix it"; it should proactively write the performant code).
People I work with either use the dogfood versions of our models, the latest public versions thereof, or Opus 5.5. It's a personal preference thing, we have public usage dashboards and you can see some people are 100% Gemini, some are 100% Claude, some are using both.
It's also dog slow at AA index tasks compared to other models in its class. Makes me think they optimised for getting on the intelligence/cost frontier at the cost of real world usability.
They'd just rescind it. They aren't usually set up as binding contracts where the employee signs on the dotted line and it's immediately binding. It's more like an expression of interests which then leads to an exit contract if the company wants.
Interesting, but this is not the dominant ideology either at exec level or at employee level. From what I can tell it's more immortal humans owning their own fractions of the light cone.
At Google it was really rare to be denied, and if they did then it was kinda a negotiating chip for you - if you're so important to the company they won't let you leave, then are they going to pay you accordingly?
Eh, the voluntary severance offered at Google in various European countries recently was less than the negotiated payout for mandatory layoffs. And most of the headcount from people who took it was backfilled, too.
AIUI, M&A lawyering is _mostly_ formulaic. They copy a term sheet from a previous deal, replace with new names and figures, and then negotiate from that starting point. Only rarely will someone actually innovate and come up with some clause that's brand new. The core of it really is talking to the other party's lawyers, then updating docs to reflect your discussions.
One obvious answer is that they believe that human flourishing is best obtained by letting individuals command the AI, rather than the other way around. OpenAI (and Anthropic) is in the end still run by humans who have concern for the human race broadly, both in and of itself and to ensure their personal wellbeing is maximised.
SAFEs work like equity in the upside case, and nobody ever says that it costs a company money when its stock price goes up and so its shareholders have more money. It's a bug in GAAP that if there's even a remote possibility of cash settlement, it has to be included on the income statement, even when that possibility is absurd, as it is here.
14x YoY revenue growth, with 3x lower operating losses (total, not per unit). They don't need to add any zeros to the funding and seem like they might even be operating at a profit soon...
If you are only interested in 1m scale, maybe. Even the open satellite imagery goes to 20x that resolution, though, and of course there are small features that can't be resolved even at 5cm resolution, like survey marks. And even at the 1m scale, they've done a bad job transforming the source data to Minecraft, there's tons of errors if you look and most of detailed features (like road centrelines) are faked.
Japan can't go to war though, that's unconstitutional ;)
But actually to answer the question: it's a weeding-out process. Only the people who genuinely in their heart of hearts feel that they belong will persist. And those people will act in the nation's interest because they feel part of the nation, even if the process of being recognised as such is a bit demeaning. Just look at how OP rationalised his abuse by bureaucracy...
What's not seen is how many people gave up which would have made perfectly fine citizens. That's IMO the real problem with this approach.
It was the most developed Asian country for a long period; so naturally it attracted the most attention from the west, as it was seen as a peer. Especially as it's allied to the US and is a liberal democracy, unlike e.g. China.