When I read stories I feel I can pick out US and UK instantly:

> Everyone is freaking out about ... - American

> ... has been Sacked from - British

> They negotiated a total sum of ... - British

> The ... is totally insane - American

But since it requires less than 16gb, the author is still right.

A private vpn is only good for punching through firewalls

Now you’re just condemning what you’ve already done. Why should anyone respect it? At some point you loose respect and eventually you just look confused.

The UK throwing a very big rock at a thin glass house.

I don’t agree with any such laws in any country, but I think it’s important to point out the hypocrisy here

Latency vs Throughput

That’s apparently the good look

There are definitely innovations from the big companies but not “key” innovations.

In the article it looks at innovation from a national level. I.e new products and services, and methodology.

The scaling you describe is great but its only impact is within YouTube, and it’s not unique. Every other company of that size has also figured their own way to scale. No one was depending on YouTube for this.

Almost everything can be termed innovation, but we need to be mindful that we are trying to justify the existence of monopolies. Ie “society needs them otherwise we couldn’t figure it out”. With that the threshold for innovation increases quite a bit.

But when it comes to information technology those situations are far and few in between.

> In the liberal fantasy, spearheaded by Adam Smith, bakers, brewers and butchers laboured within markets so cut-throat that none could make more money than the bare minimum necessary to keep their small, family-owned businesses running.

In a cash only capitalism world that you can’t conspire to have more than you earn. You earn what the market earns.

But debt suspends capitalism long enough for someone to “beat” the market. And when capitalism resumes you have this perverse player operating under exceptional circumstances.

> Joseph Schumpeter … Progress he argued, is impossible in competitive markets. Growth needs monopolies to fuel it. How else can enough profit be earned to pay for expensive research and development

I know this to be false. Almost all the big tech companies consistently FAILED to bring about innovation through research. They instead had to acquire SMALLER companies and teams that had the innovation.

YouTube, Android, Instagram, WhatsApp etc…

And almost every other innovation was gained at the startup stage not the monopoly stage.

Uber, AirBnB etc..

In football we call this an own goal

Autocracy is what threatens EU democracy, not a check mark on a social media website.

So I don’t get called a Pro-Elon shill, I don’t like Elon, and think he is an ass. But he has done (maybe unwittingly) more for democracy on social media than his counterparts.

EDIT: Community notes might have been before Elon. So he only gets a half credit.

And what my undersensationalized friend do you understand by the word chat?

Also don’t reply to this.

What has changed is we know about it.

This is where things stop translating well to the real world.

Imagine a pocket calculator:

10 + 33 = 44

Clearly incorrect, then someone tells you

“this one is different, it “helps” you, like 44 is in the ballpark. The real work is now the actual answer”

Tech enthusiast will judge ai based on what it gets right, we’re interested in what “can” do. Everyone else will judge ai based on where it fails, they are interested in what “problems” it “does” solve.

> a fluent conversation with a super smart AI that can generate any image/video is mindblowing to me.

They see: A computer software generally unreliable and unable to accomplish basic tasks