When push comes to shove the US company will always prioritize US interest. If you want to stay under the US umbrella by all means. But honestly it looks very short sighted to me.

After seeing this news https://observer.co.uk/news/columnists/article/the-networker..., how can you have any faith that they will play nice?

You have only one option. Grow alternatives. Fund your own companies. China managed to fund the local market without picking winners. If European countries really care, they need to do the same for tech.

If they don't they will forever stay under the influence of another big brother. It is US today, but it could be China tomorrow.

The shitty half-assed way companies implemented it, helped make it really unpopular.

If I run my own tests on my own codebase I will definitely use some objective time measurement method and a subjective one. I really want to know if there is a big difference.

I really wonder if its just the individuals bias showing. If you are pro-AI you might overestimate one, and if you are against it you might under-estimate it.

In this case clearly anecdotes are not enough. If that quote from the article is accurate, it shows that you cannot trust the developers time perception.

I agree, its only one study and we should not take it as the final answer. It definitely justifies doing a few follow up evaluations to see if this

They did get rid of the radar at a moment when there was a shortage of parts. They had the choice, ship now without the part, or wait and ship less cars.

Maybe that was always the plan, and the shortage only accelerated the decision.

The issue came when he promised every car would become a robotaxi. This means he either has to retrofit them all with lidar, or solve it with the current sensor set. It might be ego as well, but adding lidar will also expose them to class action suits.

The promise that contributed to the soaring valuation, now looks like a curse that stops him from changing anything. It feels a bit poetic.

quote: “We will have a trial on the pirated copies used to create Anthropic’s central library and the resulting damages,” Judge Alsup wrote in the decision. “That Anthropic later bought a copy of a book it earlier stole off the internet will not absolve it of liability for theft but it may affect the extent of statutory damages.”

This tells me Anthropic acquired these books legally afterwards. I was asking if during that purchase, the seller could add a no training close to the sales contract.

Low wage worker fired over a misinterpretation of a snapchat: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/ottawa-social-media-po...

9 year old getting called racist by a newspaper: https://apnews.com/article/defamation-deadspin-nfl-football-...

Man fired because he was cracking his knuckles: https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/502975-cal...

Another alleged white power symbol accusation: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-news/jeopardy-slamme...

They play the anti-cheat game of cat and mouse, because if they do not, users will stop playing. No one wants to play with cheaters unless they are cheating.

They could definitely invest some resources into this. But they have no monetarily incentive thus they do nothing. I fully expect legal action or fear of it, will eventually make them do something.

> I think history has shown you just end up starving the powerless (folks in power don't care) and change doesn't necessarily happen.

I know. I was not specifically arguing that it was definitely going to happen in all or even any current scenario. I just wanted to make the case that giving aid to countries with corrupt governments can definitely keep them in power longer.

I am not making the case, that we should sacrifice starving people, in the hopes of triggering a revolution. We just should stay cognizant of the fact, that foreign aid can influence internal political balances between factions. After analysis it might be, that we have to accept helping a dictator by stabilizing his country, if it saves more lives.

"When aid funds are used to substitute for government spending, then few, maybe even no one, has actually been helped unless the government uses the freed-up money for other projects of benefit to the general population. Of course, they don’t. They use the money to shore up their political position and the loyalty of their essential backers."

So there is definitely an argument to be made, that if you are not careful with how you dispense foreign aid, you will definitely empower corrupt politicians.

The book discusses examples where foreign aid was used more effectively.

As you say, Valve does not directly promote gambling products. They are not like EA with their predatory Fifa super team.

Still a lot of people, including journalists, find that they could do more to protect against underage gambling.

Now you can you argue the current US president is a fanatic if you want. But I do not see how adding more bombs to more countries reduces the odds of nuclear warfare in the future.

The current equilibrium has worked well enough. I do not see why we need to hand over nuclear weapons to countries currently embroiled in bloody civil wars.