If not, this just seems like grok not being as successful as they would have liked and then finding some other use for the compute they had bought for it while at the same time Anthropic can’t keep up with demand for claude.

What does this mean? Like in practical feature terms and benefit to the end user?

Your system kills the social networks ability to act as someone's modern day rolodex of contact information of previous acquaintances. What do they get in exchange for that?

I don't understand why insider trading would only happen as something becomes news. The inside knowledge haver is risking the information leaking some other way before they make their bet. Some very risk averse insider traders (lol?) may do so, but others are going to make their bets when they learn their information.

Assuming that they don't though, and every insider trader only ever makes their bets right before an event, I don't see how that changes anything? People working with non-insider knowledge are still going to be betting against each other before that point. They are still going to establish a likelihood of a thing happening that's more accurate than I would by myself.

The potential for scamming is high at low dollar figures sure. At some point of volume though, it's going to become too expensive to do.

> Many companies aren't selling anything special or are just selling an "idea".

It will make very little difference if Wall Street investors hold very little property.

Putting a finger on the scale of how much real estate is individually owned definitely makes a difference though. It makes it worse.

100,000 individuals who own 100,000 properties have far more political power than 10 companies who own 100,000 properties.

>If you want housing to be cheaper and renters to be better treated, increase supply. Everything else is window-dressing.

Yes. However supply is artificially restricted by government, to the approval of the average property owning voter. So more specifically, that is what needs to be changed. Everything else is window-dressing.

This is a country sliding further towards being us, with their housing being more restricted and more expensive.

You can just do that. No GPL, open source, enforcement, demands, etc language needed. Just "I'm trying to do X, can I see the code for Y?". I receive and send them at work pretty frequently.

They've mentioned the GPL as a way to try to increase the chances of getting sent the code. A support person for a medical device company might not know anything about software licences or linux or GPL. If the company has some sort of "send GPL code to askers" policy and Lost-Entrepreneur439 just asks for the linux kernel, the support person might not know that the GPL policy applies and just say no. If you include it in your message then it increases the chances of them typing "GPL" in to whatever internal knowledge bank they have and seeing "for GPL requests, forward the enquiry to jeff@ourcompany.com" or something like that.

The GPL isn't between Lost-Entrepreneur439 and the company so I don't think "enforcement/exercising a legal right" is an accurate way to describe what we're talking about. That would be if the copyright holders to the linux kernel get involved.

EDIT: Although that seems like largely just a semantics thing. Like if a judge orders a company to pay you some money and you say "give it to austhrow743" is it valid to say that I have a right to that money? Or is it that you have the right that I get that money? If someone wants to phrase "linux kernel copyright holders have a right to demand users of their code share it with anyone who asks" as "anyone who asks has a right to that code" then I don't really have a problem with that.

I just see a big difference between making a request and making a claim. I don't need to think I'm legally entitled to something to ask for it. I don't even need to think that getting it is likely. Whereas Abigail appears to be treating sending and receiving requests by emails as equivalent to a court summons.

Just "there is no basis" as a response would be like saying "yes" or "no" to "have you stopped beating your wife?"

My understanding of the concept of "basis" does not fit the context of sending an email, and "reason" is the closest I can find that fits.

Basis being concerned with rules or authority. The assumption being when asking "what is the basis for X?" that there was a bar that needed to be met beyond the doers motivations. That there needed to be more than they wanted to. Which of course, does not apply to sending an email. I could email you right now asking you what your favourite type of fish is or seeing if you want to play a game of chess, no basis needed. I'd just need a reason to.