nolok

It's a two way street; sanction on big tech is also the big weapon the EU has against the US if need be and that we kept threatening but never activating.

Which doesn't mean it's easy or won't hurt like hell, but this is a continent that just cut most of the gas cord lines in record times despite massive pain and cost, if it came down to it we would simply because if it comes down to this and we don't then we're done.

Short time it would damage us pretty hard, but long term it would be another net loss for the US.

From what I read about what they wanted Canada to sign (the "new deal" Canada walked out of), they want to give them strict conditions and no abilities to make new deals with someone else to make them fully dependant. So the goal was not really military conquest but economic stranglehold. All the while apparently asking to tone down their minorities including the french one.

There is an alternate timeline where Canada signed that, and it looks much bleaker for them down the road.

I thank you for this very high level analysis that gives absolutely zero actual content or details because big funny words, but I think we have to agree to disagree on that one.

And on the climate policies in particular, my personnal belief is that we haven't gone far enough fast enough, limit access to our market to product made using climate respecting or restoring ways should have been the rule decades ago already.

I know some people look at the way the world climate is changing and think "ehh so what / it's not really us doing it", but that's not how we see things here.

CETA (the existing EU/CA one) is also being bogged down in some country including my own (France) because of some food issues, so I think everyone involved knows.

And while you're correct about Canada being extra motivated at the moment; so is the EU. It's such an absurd situation that we know the "urgent pivot need" might slow down a lot if adult come back in charge in the US. Same reason why so many want to sign so quickly, it's like gold on a platter AND Canada win too, you don't spit on that offer.

I mean, it's only what the US is doing that's strange.

It's a country with tons of raw resources and a large consumer market, they're the "dream partner" for the large blocks (USA/China/EU, and Japan/India a bit behind). You buy their resources, they make a lot of money from it, you turn it into a final product and you make a lot of money from the value added, everyone is happy.

It's really weird that the US is suddenly not happy about this arrangement, and for resource-starved EU it's a golden opportunity; of course we will happily buy if the US doesn't want to anymore. That's why there is so little friction showing up (there will be more later, of course, but relatively little), why Canada can get so many deal quickly with everyone during this turnaround, it's that obvious of a win for everyone involved.

(as usual, the key blocking point that will need lots of work will be food, even more than it is with the US, I wish we could scrap that entire part to get a v1 going quickly but alas it's not how trade deal work)

Even ignoring your point that I massively disagree with ... It's not about joining the EU at all so what are you talking about

Which is still a better position that the others? My point is you can't consider that a bad thing if you think it's ok for their competitors in the field. And if you don't and your judge them equally, then at least Google has its own cash glow and could turn the gas off at any point to go back to printing money while they have not choice.

Not sure what your comment mean in the context of parent's comment.

As opposed to what, them not having it and burning money that isn't their instead like openai and anthropic? At least Google is feeding itself instead of having to create a bubble to stay alive

Dealing with minors has lots of rules and reglementation, for good reason, and usually the justice system of functional countries don't allow you to bypass those with "don't know, didn't ask", because duh of course not.

Using kids data to train? No no. Talking to kids about certain matters (it's still fairly easy to make those model go into drugs or sex or suicide or whatever). No no.

Sure, but if you're working in a field where that limitation is not "because you like it" but "because you have to" it doesn't matter. If you cannot assume it to be true, then you have to assume it isn't.

Ah, come to France, maybe that explains my "sure of myself" answer in the parent comment. 0.0*01% + "à-valoir" is very common and cover the situation described here (eg you get paid a paid royalty, in advance, if the revenue ever exceed you are owed it, but if it's always under you never have to pay back).

Sort of a "I pay you 100€ but if this turns out to be a billion euro thing you get you gold ticket too".

Yes and if you decide to play not using a game rulebook but a website that call it "game A" you can't be shocked if "game A" switched from one to the other, even though the doc said opposite yesterday.

I work in the same field for one of my company, in europe, and if you're not self hosting sorry but your worries are not something I can accept because models are very much not reliable on that front, let alone when you let the host decide HOW to serve a model (ressources allocated, different version of the same model, etc ...).

I'm not being a d**, just saying, the problem you have is something that I have faced EXACTLY, and at least here it's not working until you host in house or remote but on raw hardware. Otherwise it keeps having subtle changes, and you will notice no LLM API providers has guarantees about these.

If you use a large enough volume, you will know this isn't fully reliable. You might get json, and it might not match what the model actually sent because the last layer cut it up to match what you want. At the end, not json, or json but not really matching what the model wanted, it's sort of the same issue: when you use them you HAVE to assume they can have a brain fart. That's fine, just code around it.

Yeah but then it doesn't matter if it's "the model changed to another one" or "the model changed but it's the same name". Point is, you're not hosting it, as far as you know it can change at any moment, build around that idea. Is that great no, is that ideal no, that's why I self host (I include actually renting online the capacity and hosting the model myself on it).

I think it depends on the workload, which put you in the right (in some case, it's dangerous to do that), but for me even for very clean always correct path I always assume a model can, at time, have a vector brain fart (because it keeps happening).

Also in principle it's similar to Anthropic downgrading.

Personally I use the basis that if I don't self host (I include remote host, but that I pay per hosting nor per model or api), it can change behavior without me asking. But they shouldn't, but it doesn't matter that's what they do.

Usually I would very much agree with you, but those things are not deterministic so if that's an issue for you you're probably not making the right choices.

> Also there was a little outcry that the original artist just received the royalty free platform usual ridiculously small one time payment.

I mean, if I tell you I'm to sell something to you for 5 dollars and you will be allowed to do this or that with it, and you give me the 5 dollars and then do this or that, it's a bit ridiculous to then have an "outcry" that you were successfull at doing this or that so you owe me more.

Not trying to offend but artists willing to make bird logo for cheap are a dime a dozen, which is why those site exists in the first place, and they didn't care about which one exactly which is why they went on that site to buy it; it's ot like there was any vile or unfair action being done there.

The genesis of jellyfin is as a fork of Emby by part of the developper who saw the need for finance of Emby to start driving choices being made in the project rather than user and technical needs and merits.

Part of the team needed it, part of it saw that as something that shouldn't go that way, so they did what you're supposed to do in open source and forked. Ergo they are very much against doing that for that specific project.

The genesis of jellyfin is as a fork of Emby by part of the developper who saw the need for finance of Emby to start driving choices being made in the project rather than user and technical needs and merits.

Part of the team needed it, part of it saw that as something that shouldn't go that way, so they did what you're supposed to do in open source and forked.

So it's not really a surprise they don't go that way.

> 2. Isar Aerospace is the first fully private European company (a startup) to do this. Arianespace and the Ariane rockets have heavy state/ESA involvement.

To go even further: ~60% of Ariane Group revenue is from the french state, for their nuclear launch system. The whole ariane space rocket is their side show, a way to reduce cost for France by getting the market to pay some of the R&D.

Maybe I phrased it wrong, it's not my native language ? I meant it "it's not just a military restriction thing when they think there is military danger, it's an economic thing for when they can take advantage over a seller, and who the buyer is doesn't even matter".

Says who ? Not the people who live there and not the people of France and not the UN, so who cares about your random opinion on the internet

No, what you say is quite literally my argument; that the "Europe" is not the argument I value by itself for sovereignty

You have events completly backward, Russia was already invading when Macron said it. If you can't even get years in the right order you're not really arguing in good faith.

Agreed, the moment we allowed MBDA to put some american component in our (French) missiles made with european allies (Scalp, Meteor), the US blocked our sales to Egypt because they wanted to sell their own instead, using ITAR, forcing us to fix it for the french version.

The US has repeatedly proven that ITAR is for them as much of a military thing as it is an economic one, and that they're willing to use it against allies. If we refuse to learn that lesson, it's on us not them.

I have no idea what's your point but I have to say I find "The country is [...] siding with islamists" when we were literally the only country willing to defend the freedom to speech and caricature religion a couple years ago against islamism, with Quebec the outlier that sided with us (even though Canada did not).

Overall: I don't think any country should be on top. I'm glad France is not number one, and I hope it remains strong but never get in that position again. Part of why I love the EU is that no one, not even us or germany, is strong enough to fully impose its will without concession. Some would disagree with that, but they clearly don't know their history. So ... I'm not sure what your point is, but I think I disagree with it.

Believe me, I'm even more worried than you. I think Melanchon would actually do more damage, as crazy as it seems, Le Pen is incompetent and a sellout, Melanchon actually believes the BS he vomits.

Macron finished the traditionnal left and right wing parties, which were too large and rotten to the core, but it's left us with a large center and two extremes, it's high time we have the normies left and right come back.

> didn't Macron also say he would deploy French troops in Ukraine?

No he did not, he said he refused to rule it out: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/feb/27/french-preside...

So I would recommend making sure to inform yourself properly rather than assuming what you read (or thought you read) is correct

> Surely Ukraine is an "EU neighbor". They're currently suffering from an actual aggressor (Putin), not merely theoretical (Trump).

But as you said, they're NOT EU, not in an official military alliance with France. If you cannot see the difference between the two situation, I can't make it any clearer for you.

If you're saying "we should do the same for those that are out that for those that are in", what you are saying is "being in has no purpose, why take the commitment". I believe your point of view is as wrong as can be.

Yeah but although the crazies in charge have been very negative toward our continent and my country (Frace), they've also steered very clear away from any seizing claim about any of our territory, despite going against anyone from Canada to Denmark to Spain to UK, to ...

Deep down, we're an annoyingly arrogant little country with delusions of grandeur salivating at the thought to prove to our EU neighbors how strong we meant it when we said we would accept to oppose the US in case of military attack and I think they knew we may actually mean it and not back down when it start (see also: Denmark leak about how France was essentially willing to provide whatever to help defend Greenland).

I'm not saying this in a "we're awesome" way, more like a hard case of the TACO, bullies avoid the ones who punch back. Nothing would be happening in Iran right now if they had not believed in advance Iran would lie down like Venezuela did after losing its leader, though most would say confusing the two situation makes no sense.

Ultimately this is so much lost time and resources for nothing of value, it's so utterly disappointing...