Well, being secular is kind of a catholic thing. Besides the vatican (for obvious reasons), catholics do have that tradition.
To Caesar what is Caesar’s, to God…
336 karma · joined September 26, 2021
To Caesar what is Caesar’s, to God…
Domain knowledge, expertise, is a big thing in tech, because code can be written fast if you know what to do, and so by having that expertise, building a frontier model is a matter of time and capex. Anthropic is founded by top ex-openAi, so they are not lacking in expertise, and are not attached to SamAlt. It’s an easy choice of who to finance.
Anthropic will win long term because big tech knows how much of a loud mouth sam is, how much of the piee he wants, he is more of a rival then some company they could use to grow. While Anthropic (even though they aren’t really good guys) seems more like a shared common good for the big tech then openAi, like linux corporate business deals version.
Sending USD from random bank from random country to another random bank from another random country is a network problem. While it’s solved by SEPA in EUR to EUR countries by pan european clearing and settlement systems, out in the big world it’s not as simple. Specially considering cross-border.
You have to somehow get the payment message across banks and decide on how to settle. It fundamentally a hard problem.
Stable cryptos put the message and settlement in the same system and it’s a global one (not just EU/wtv). The problem is then, which stable crypto? The moment the Fed has a USD crypto, our ECB has an Eur crypto, than that problem is solved. In the meanwhile, joining a big stable usd crypto might still provide you better remittance routes (and settlement) than sending messages over swift.
Tldr: stablecoins solve remittance routing “edge cases”, if the stablecoin is adopted enough
Payments basics: Simplest scenario (details overly simplified) When you send money from account A on bank X to account B on bank Y, what happens is that Bank X debits account A on its system and credits bank Y’s account on bank X (let’s say it’s Xy account) Then bank X sends message to Bank Y to credit account B, so Bank Y debits X’s bank account (Yx) and credits B.
As you can see this is an issue, it means that every bank has to have an account on every other bank in order to have funds moving around, and even keep liquidity there.
That’s where Clearing And Settlement system comes in, they act as a centralised force.
So instead of bank X having an account (with enough liquidity ) on bank Y so that its customers can transfer money to Bank Y customers, both of these banks have an account on some Clearing/Settlement third party (usually it’s a system by a Central Bank) and interact with that system instead, so instead of N*N bank accounts on outer banks, you have N accounts on central system.
EU has TARGET from ECB for settlement of euros across EU.
But there is no central bank of the whole world of every currency.
So what happens when too far away banks interact?
They have to search through the graph of all the world banks how they can get money to a particular bank. Add currency conversion as an extra complexity, because every connection is on a currency.
So it’s quite the graph search with many constraints, clearing and settling such stuff is hard because of that.
Regulation and AML is just one of the difficulties in linking nodes, but other exists, for example liquidity, a small bank can’t just spread multi currency accounts on many places.
The benefit of stablecoin on a blockchain, is that it kinda gives you “whole world central bank”, more correctly, it makes everybody share the same ledger, instead of each bank having its own that needs reconciliation with everybody else.
The only thing extra needed for stable coins, is space for encrypted messages is a transfer(so that a bank can tell other bank to credit customer B) and a public mapping from Bank Bic to crypto wallet id.
I work in “traditional” (as in, non crypto) payment systems, and i can tell you that plenty of companies are looking into using cryto rails for complex remmitance routes.
The problem is swift network/correspondent/intermediary banking. When you want to send money abroad to badly connected banks of badly connected countries, you might have a big route chain (multiple times intermediaries), fees can be huge , and settlement can take a long time. For these “small” banks it can be extremely hard to get better banking partners for better network (as in banking not IT) connection (multiple reasons, from price to available business partner, and company bandwith to go with the project)
Stable coins are much simper by comparison, you just need a wallet, and you ate a n a global network with automated settlement. Now whats lacking is standardizing how to send a message “ your crypto X received money from our crypto wallet Y, from our customer with acct number yyy, intended to your customer with acct number xxx”
Still some guys send iso message via swift to semd those intents and then settle via crypto.
This is a non existing problem for intra-eu payments due to all eu members being part of TARGET settlement system, and there are pan-EU clearing systems, but as soon as you get to more “disconnected “ countries, or “smaller” banks cross continent, it’s a pain.
The Apple value pack comes mostly from brand value, deep ecosystem interactions, and being pretty much the only big corp ONLY focused on high end personal computing devices. Almost all their revenue is from B2C, their incentives are more aligned than most other big corps.
Any split to not actually harm the customers would be more focused on services such as apple card, icloud, the apple plus services (music,tv,…) etc.
Tbh, even EU mesures i think would be better if apple was instead forced to open the hardware (provide docs and bootloader, and no penalty for an user that takes advantage), rather than opening the OS or store. Not needing such openness on store and OS/core libs, actually allows apple to be more nimble and providing de better service (or bigger margins :( ), buto opnning hardware could actually give other OSs a chance, for once there could be a linux phone, as iphone has few hardware configs, and the device is very wide spread, 2 factors making it very attractive to devs (as example, check asahi linux, how quickly it became usable on a platform without docs)
This would play much more into “i bought this device i run wtv software I want” without restricting software vendors, Apple could keep the benefit of tight integration (that consumers like me like), but would have to provide the docs (and boot) for alternative OS to rise.
I’ve watched both the original british “Ghosts” sitcom and the still running american one. And to be honest this is the american quirk that i found the most odd.
I’ve actually like the fact they have created different characters to make more sense to be stuck in an american manor, but the main ones dont hide the beautifull actors appeal, which is weird.
Also, the american ghosts chatecters seem to have less depht, or at least their deph is rarely shown, ie, deph is there, but ignored or forgotten in most eps.
I miss the “cavern ghost” that while he had very primitive behaviours, he was actually smart, but more than that, he showed the pain, experience and how he grow detatched from partimgs and the lime due to the millenia he has been stuck, his mirror “thor” also has noce things, but doesn’t compare, or at least they dont play to them enough.
The english boy scout is a more mature and melancolic as well, and acts as a father feature to the female lead occasionally, while the american younger seems much more steriotipical.
I really like the american finance bro, it is no way similar to his british politic counterpart, and they do show his nice guy side often, I think the fact that they made them so opposite made me enjoy it more.
I guess that the difference in episode count per season might also justify why in most eps the americans are just steriotypes.
But the “beauty” of the american ghosts is just silly american obsession.
I assume there is lots of cheating because of every game having matchmaking system for fair with rankings. And there’s a huge amount of people that feel locked into low ranking because of bad teammates (which makes no sense statistically speaking), and if they just bump something they would do well.
There’s others who just want to showoff an high ranking.
And the guys that just want a cheap win, at the expense of ruining everyone else game.
And then there’s the business of this. Cheat tool makers making money of these lind of people. High ranking players selling boosting services or high ranking accounts (smurfing and cheating feels very similar on the loosing side). And even the high ranking players selling player providing boosting can cheat to perform the service in less time.
Skill based matchmaking with any form of public ranking (showing a number or tier) will always be full of people trying to game the system instead of trying to get better at the game. Specially in team games.
In the US, a populist just needs to win a primary, ie 50% of 50% of the American votes, and he is immediately at least nr2 in the run, and they get the support of one of the major parties.
Saying that populists / extremists also exist in Europe is just a bad comparison.
Really? I see Japanese works with as much if not more savior narrative than western’s.
Maybe you don’t see it due to you mostly consuming romance anime, have you also tried western romance?
Go is much more optimised for quick onboarding, fast feedback, more “code look” consistency across projects then rust.
Now a team that knows both rust and go well might have the same proditivity in rust and go (maybe even more in rust), but with lots of changes in personell, specifically in quick growing departments, go can make a huge difference.
This is obviously just an anecdote, but i’ve seen more companies or departments running mostly a go backend stack, having job postings saying “no go experience required”, than the equivalent other companies (or departments ) focused on any other lang.
This is not a small startup with some SaaS, these guys are in most computers of too many huge companies. Not rolling out the updates to everyone at the same time seems just too obvious
GPU market would be hard to recover, and reason to use AMD (for the money printing AI) is just budget. Software is not good enough, it’s understandably not in AMD’s DNA, it was simply lacking in budget as it was close to bankruptcy when CUDA started taking off.
emphasis on top, ofc great designers would still design great no matter the ISA, but best and great is different
That applies to any stranger. Basically, a billionaire is human like any other.
We do idolize Billionaire / celebrity too much, but these unkind takes don't help anyone.
> Don't think for a second they aren't selfish in their own way they would have to be in order to be involved and run an enterprise of that magnitude.
every human is selfish in their own way.
> What does down to earth mean anyway? Most people probably think that it means you appear to be more like the common man and don't have the typical trappings of wealth (or if you do nobody knows about them).
by your definition, he is down to earth. I would not define it like that, but i don't even know how to define it, but i would say that it correlates with not living for the apparatus or "big life" / hype / spend, and enjoying "small" things (ie, good and long lasting friendships, healthy family relations, simply enjoying a meal with people they care)
Munger and Buffet do seem to fit that.
Very murky argument, because pirating something doesn't mean that if the piracy option was not available, a purchase would happen. So, was the income stream really stollen, or did it not exist to begin with?
Also, the "without coercion" is also shaky. Copying (for most digital goods) is practically free/unlimited. Everyone is being coerced by force of law/jail to abide by artificially scarcity rules. I wonder about the % of University students that would be facing legal consequences if laws were always enforced when some pages of study books are copied (and these aren't even as simple to copy as something digital)
> they are stealing my labor, my time
The labor already happened, it was not stolen, the revenue speculation was just wrong. It happens to any kind of business, regardless of piracy or not, I would argue that relying solely on income that comes from a good that is replicated almost freely is not a good business practice.
Same shit with Free Software movement, FOSS is not a business model, you can make money with it, but FOSS itself is not a business model, it's up to you to figure a way to make money with it. (And nobody is being stolen of labor when someone clones a repo/downloads some package). Plenty of people made their careers with just Free Software business, and there have been DRM-free games in #1 spot on Steam.
The same applies to any other digital artifact, it's up to you to figure a way to make money, the easiness of copy-ability is part of the physical reality, "artificial scarcity" is "artificial" for a reason.
Case in point is "doing business with American/Russian companies" not the evils of war, which are undisputable.
The "freedom" is a very important point when doing any kind of risk assessment of a vendor deal.
> You realize that they did offer to extradite bin Ladin, right?
I did not, thanks for the info.
- the Afghanistan invasion was an actual reaction to a direct attack, not a “you are close to joining an opponent alliance”
- in the west people were free to criticize the invasion, while Russians have much to fear if they are anti-war.
The first point is more moral, while both wars are ridiculous, they are different scale of ridiculous, but not important from business perspective.
This is extremely important from a business perspective, as it shows the state heavy arm on its people and therefore its business. If it controls people’s speech, people’s business are under even more control.
So, as a business, you face a much bigger risk depending on some compony from a “controlling state”, then a more free state.
This doesn’t mean that USA/the west, doesn’t use it’s private companies, it’s just a difference on scale, and how easy/entrenched that control is.
Another example, is that many european PMs lost the next election cycle with major reason being supporting that war effort. Also, people were actually allowed to protest. Checkout how russian protests are handled.
Just like even today in eastern eurocountries there are some sons of ex wealthy soviets nicknamed “homo sovietis”, with their soviet themed bars, which are perfectly allowed today, but i wonder what would happened if during their youth they opened a “capitalist/ocidental” bar.
It’s quite different from a lootbox that has no production restriction (replication is instant and almost free)
I don’t believe that the low supply of RPIs is an attempt to extract huge profits, logistics are not easy. This magazine move seems more of an honest way to prioritizing people that have been showing interest. They are not demanding new subscriptions, they are prioritizing who has on.
An entusiastic hobbyists, that has been accompanying the project and supporting via these, would be happy that we got his pi before some random guy clicking buy on impulse
From the makers of todoist, they made a comms tool for their async remote workflow and then made a SaaS out of it.
At $work i see lots of projects leaving the monorepo due to that very mess.
The problem is that services outside have other CI and maintenance issues that wouldn’t happen in the monorepo. But monorepo got so messy that it got unbearable.
The proper solution would be to have a dev teams dedicated to tooling for it, the org has the resources, but it’s just not investing enough in that area.
This means that nvidia capital is spend on testing/development infrastructure and creative labor.
So, you don’t need monopoly breaking to handle nvidia if it keeps growing, but instead rethink IP laws.
Testing infrastructure is less capital investment than production manufacture. (See ASML and TSMC beeing booked), and humans can be persuaded to work elsewhere.
This means Nvidia cannot fall a sleep, even if they keep snowballing. In a few years a rival can always arrive, or current ones snag key people or have dev/test infra breakthrough, or IP law could change as its critics rise every year.
Sure, if Nvidia keeps its good game it will keep on growing and get even bigger share, but if it doesn’t, it will happen what happened with intel, intel got greedy on its position, and the company got fat.
As long as nvidia keeps its game, it’ll be good for customers even if they swallow more market share, as prices are always limited by the value business customers get from AI, and the investment needed for a competitor is not even close to infrastructure or resource extraction stuff like high end chip fabs, oil extraction, energy grids, telecom grids.
Again, Nvidia does not produce any physical goods, only designs.
Switch still allows local multiplayer if the games implement it.