nostrademons

Why? The purpose of the bond market isn't to supply the government with currency, but rather to distribute risk and capital payments to those most willing to bear them.

The grievance you express here basically comes down to "Who decides?" The reason the ICC is objectionable to the U.S. (and China, and Russia, and India - there are a bunch of other non-signatories of the ICC agreement, and I'm not picking on the U.S. here, more trying to illustrate a dynamic) is because it sets up a justice system that is not accountable to the U.S. political process.

The reason I'm saying that this undermines U.S. soft power and legitimacy is because it shouldn't matter who decides. If your country actually stands for freedom, justice, and universal human rights, then another human working from those principles would reach the same conclusion you do. That's what makes them universal human rights. So the implicit message when judges are sanctioned because other nations disagree with their right to make decisions is that maybe those rights aren't universal after all, and that some people's rights are more right than others. It's telegraphing insecurity - someone who knows they are in the right will happily let others make the decision, because they trust that others will come to the same conclusion as them.

The rest of your post also comes from that frame. You may actually be right - I acknowledged that neutrality and objectivity is likely a fiction. The thing is, that fiction underpins the ideas of rule of law, democracy, freedom, justice, and peace. All of those stem from a basic trust that your fellow humans, once they are trained to think in those terms, will come to the same conclusions that you do. So yes, perhaps all of international relations is power players advancing their own interests - but once everybody believes that to be true, we will lose rule of law, democracy, freedom, justice, and peace.

There's another possible outcome as well: commerce moves to the black market, which eventually inverts the traditional national sovereignty relationship such that people learn that if they want to get anything done safely, they do it over encrypted communication channels with cryptocurrencies, and eventually the rump states of "official" governments are seen as cosplayers fighting over a pageant that people pay lip service to but don't rely on anymore.

The effect of these transitive sanctions is to create trading blocks. If you want to do business with the U.S, you don't do business with sanctioned entities. If other world powers (like China or the EU) want to negate the power of U.S. sanctions, they pass laws that people in their countries must not comply with U.S. sanctions or risk being sanctioned themselves. Now firms are stuck: if they comply with one set of sanctions they are in violation of another, and vice versa, and so it becomes impossible to comply with all of them. Their two options are: 1) comply with their local, national trading bloc and forego the benefits of globalization and trade or 2) become an outlaw, get the benefits of trade, but risk the ire of national authorities.

#2 seems rather unthinkable right now, coming off the Pax Americana, but it was actually quite common during historical periods like the one we're headed into. That's the choice made by pirates during the 1600s; by American colonists in the 1770s; oftentimes by frontier settlers in ~1860s America; and by numerous non-state nations like Jews or Gypsies throughout history. Plus, the Internet and cryptocurrencies and VPNs and Tor and residential proxies all exist. The technology is there for a market state that crosses national boundaries, and the social conditions are building.

Notice I said "outcome" rather than "solution", as I think people can see many things wrong with this. You'll kinda get whatever emerges, which probably is not an improvement on what we had from 1990-2020.

It undermines the idea of the U.S. as a neutral arbiter for law, order, and free commerce. That may always have been a fiction, but it's a very useful fiction because it underpins U.S. soft power. It's much easier to get consent for being the world hegemon when you act like a benevolent, disinterested hegemon. Once you start becoming a participant - and overriding other institutions that are ostensibly providing neutral, impartial justice just because their decisions are inconvenient for you - you are essentially placing yourself below them and undermining your own legitimacy.

Neutrality and objectivity may be a fiction, but it's one of the most useful fictions that have been invented in the last 500 years.

FWIW the same applies to flying in the U.S. as long as you're not a person that the government cares about. I haven't had any issues with either TSA or CBP since 2011 (when, apparently, being multiracial with facial hair made me look Middle-Eastern and looking Middle-Eastern is a cardinal sin at U.S. ports of entry). Neither has anyone I've observed at the airport, and that's thousands of people per flight, and I fly about 3-4 times per year. There's plenty of stories on the Internet, and I don't doubt the stories are true, but the Internet can easily make a 1-in-a-million occurrence happen every day (indeed, given the sheer numbers, a 1 in a million occurrence does happen every day, it's just that it's unlikely to happen to you).

It doesn't really matter what the AI companies want, if they misjudge the market somebody will just start a competitor and take it.

The relevant questions are: 1) Where are the economies of scale in the technology stack? 2) What's "good enough" to consumers, and how does that stack up with the relevant computing power needed? 3) What are the transaction costs along various system boundaries?

I think that the biggest force keeping inference in large centralized services is simply that provides a better product for the average user who doesn't care about local control (and the average user doesn't care about local control; indeed, for most people it's a misfeature, as then they have to administer their own hardware). HN is full of nerds that want to own their own stack; they're willing to put up with a little loss of capability to run Qwen 3.8 locally. But from the folks I know that have tried it vs. Claude vs. Codex vs. Antigravity, the local models are still pretty weak compared to what you can get by paying for a service. Most people will just pay for the service until the performance becomes indistinguishable and the price becomes less.

I'm not convinced of that, and I don't think the market is showing that it's convinced. At least not abnormal, above-2% inflation like we've had for the last 5 years.

I think there's a decent chance that Warsh gets inflation under control. The recent rise in bond yields is 100% due to Fed action: the Fed stopped rolling over long-term treasuries and MBS into like-kinded securities in June, instead rolling them over to short-term treasuries. This shrinks the Fed's balance sheet on the long end of the curve and adds to it on the short end, just like Warsh said that he would do. It's net-neutral for the Fed's balance sheet as a whole, but the effect is to push up long-term yields, hold short-term yields steady (which have a floor of the Fed funds rate), and steepen the yield curve.

The next step - and Warsh has made no secret that this is his plan - is that once the long-term Treasury market finds an equilibrium without Fed support, use that information to figure out what the neutral rate is, and set short-term rates accordingly. The price action we're seeing is a strong indication that the neutral rate is significantly higher than anybody expects right now.

The bond market is also not expecting significant inflation over the next 10 years. You can see this through the TIPS spread, the difference in rates between the 10-year TIPS and the 10-year Treasury bond. It currently stands at about 2.35%, indicating that the market as a whole expects about 2.35% (CPI) inflation over the next 10 years.

https://en.macromicro.me/collections/51/us-treasury-bond/846...

I'd question all of the "stocks keep marching higher" and the "it's not irrational" and the "only way out of this mess is inflation" narratives.

Take a look at the S&P 500 vs. the equal-weight S&P 500 over the last 6 months:

https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/ES%3DF/

https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/RSP/

The equal-weight S&P 500 has been on a steady march downwards since it became apparent in August that the Iran war was not even close to over, and is now getting close to correction territory (7% down). This is exactly what you would expect given the news. It is the opposite of what you would expect from the inflation story, which would lift the earnings of everything in the S&P 500 (which, after all, is composed of the 500 largest companies and overweights monopolies or oligopolies in broad industries).

The S&P 500, however, has been basically flat over that same time period, holding at the 7700 level. It basically has a leg down over the course of the week, and then always pumps on Friday to regain the previous level. I'm not sure if it's government intervention or irrational exuberance in a small set of AI stocks, but the divergence between the broad market and the S&P 10 is becoming increasingly noticeable.

Note that it's possible for dating problems to be user behavior problems in a way that is suits the profit motive of dating sites, without any conscious intent from anyone in the ecosystem.

Model a world where everybody's self-perception of their mating value is just a little bit higher than their actual value - in other words, one not too far off from reality. Some segment of this population will drop their standards in the face of repeated rejection, and then eventually find a partner because of this. Their "lowered standards" become an accurate self-perception of reality. But some segment of the population will be unwilling to do this. They have a problem - they cannot find a partner no matter how hard they look.

A problem creates a market. People who can't find a partner turn to dating apps to find a partner - some may pay, and a lot more will click on ads. There's a decent chance that dating app management isn't consciously optimizing for failure in dating and success in clicking on ads. However, all the apps that are good at finding partners for their customers find that their customers disappear, while the apps that are good at getting people to click on ads generate huge amounts of revenue and take over the market. Which is entirely composed of people who don't actually want to find a partner, anyway, because those people who care more about the outcome of finding a partner will usually drop their standards enough to find one.

The same dynamic applies in many other markets. Evolution and selection bias > intent and intelligent design. The market ends up composed of people who can't achieve the ostensible purpose of the market, largely through their own actions, because people who can drop out of the market. Happy people often go through life with very few transactions: they might change jobs a couple times early in their career before finding a boss and job they're happy with and staying there until retirement, or they date around a little and then find a partner they marry for life, or they might rent a couple apartments before buying a house, renovating once, and then staying in it for 40 years. The transactions are overwhelmingly composed of people who are dissatisfied, because that's why they're buying things.

It is a stock part of Android. You can plug your Android phone into an external display and you'll get an experience like the Googlebook.

That's sort of the point of the Googlebooks. They run Android internally, and then to get Android to support Googlebooks, they had to add/improve things like multi-window support, very large monitors, keyboards, mouse support, etc.

If you have a USB dock that your keyboard/mouse/display is plugged in to, you should be able to stick it in your Pixel phone's USB jack and get a desktop experience. Some of my team would actually test keyboard support that way, by plugging a keyboard into a tablet.

That very much strikes me as a CEO that is telling the American people what sounds good to the American people, while the consequences of it will be good to his company while placing the blame on other companies.

I mean, the reason that all these stories about AI being an existential threat to humanity are coming out is because they've made $3.1T in debt-fuelled spending commitments and now interest rates are going up. "AI will kill us all if we don't regulate it" is their "get out of debt free" card, so they can have the U.S. government stop the arms race, raise prices on their existing models, and declare force majeure on new DC commitments:

https://emeraldbook.org/news/sep-1426-3/

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49830037

It's telling that the only AI-related company that is not sounding the AI safety drumbeat is NVidia, who is the only one that is cash-flow positive because of AI.

The Bay Area is one big river delta, going inland to Sacramento.

It's not the Pacific coast communities you have to worry about like Half Moon Bay or Santa Cruz. They have a beach, and then cliffs, and then the actual city is like 50-100 feet above sea level.

It's the bayside communities. Foster City. Redwood Shore. The Embarcadero. SFO. Port of Oakland. Highway 101.

All of these are pretty critical parts of Bay Area infrastructure, and gone with as little as a 1.6' sea level rise + 20yr storm.

https://www.kqed.org/science/1973624/maps-see-which-bay-area...

There are already several private companies that have this, eg. Apple has specific exemptions from tariffs on smartphones, computers, and semiconductors that they got by paying off Trump and promising to make their iPhone glass in Kentucky:

https://thedailyeconomy.org/article/tariff-exemptions-are-bi...

https://www.warren.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/media/doc/l...

The correct mental model for the U.S. federal government right now is not an omnipotent democratic overseer for economic activity, but rather as just one firm that negotiates directly with other major firms for legitimization and legal protection. Their power is likely to decline further, as is the value of "legitimization", as technological developments erode the military's monopoly on physical force. Interesting times ahead - historically tech transitions like this lead to a splintering of state legitimacy and then a reorganization under new forms of governance.

There's technology now that matches local satellite/aerial images against the imagery that a drone or cruise missile sees to replace the GPS chip.

For fairly obvious reasons, militaries that have it would rather it stay in their hands, for fear of creating a non-state peer competitor that can do cheap long-range strikes on strategic targets.

It's fairly likely it'll fall into private hands anyway though, because anyone who can afford the prices for commercial satellite imagery could build such a thing.

Russia/Ukraine and Israel/Iran/US are going to be looked at as the precursors to WW3, the same way that the Sino-Japanese War, Spanish Civil War, and Sudetenland Crisis were the precursors to WW2 and the Russo-Japanese War, Moroccan Crisis, and Balkan Wars were the precursors to WW1.

The article implies that this was the actual motive for this attack. The group is conducting counterintelligence on the FBI so that they know when their members are being investigated, and they're using the information gained to "track, intimidate, and harass the FBI agents investigating them".

The article says "All FBI data was compromised." Entirely possible that they have the case files on every investigation the FBI has ever conducted, all the data on Americans that the FBI collects in the course of doing investigations, etc. And they now know who shot JFK.

The expense usually comes in operations. By connecting the water treatment plant to the Internet and making it remotely operable, you can have one guy who sits in an office and is responsible for overseeing the water quality at many different treatment plants. If everything is local, you need one guy on site at each different plant. People are expensive, software is cheap.

Of course, by making it remotely operable, that one guy could be replaced with a guy in Russia who's job is to poison everyone.

I think the best approach is still files with embedded metadata (eg. EXIF for images/videos, ID3v2 for MP3s, resource forks in classic MacOS apps). That way you store, organize, and move around the content as a unit, and then you can display it in whatever way you want. And you can write new apps to display things differently as consumer tastes change.

A "navigational query" is a query with a certain website in mind. So like if you search for [facebook], 99.99% of the time you are looking to go to Facebook, if you search for [hacker news] 99.99% of the time you are looking to go to news.ycombinator.com. Basically it replaces the address bar for people who don't know what URLs are. You aren't looking for information about the business, you want to go to the site/business itself.

Oh, nice. So all traffic is routed over Shoreline and then enters downtown through Villa/Dana? That's a better road for it anyway, with the grade-separated Caltrain & Central Expressway crossings.

Is there still pedestrian access from the northeast side of the Caltrain? I used to live in the Moffett/Middlefield area and being able to walk to downtown was a big draw for that.

In general the bondholders don't win unless they're holding senior secured debt. If they were expecting a return of 5% on their bonds, the fact that the company entered bankruptcy means that the profit it can generate is less than the 5% interest the bondholders were asking for. It may get recapitalized with them as the shareholders, but the profits on the new recapitalized company will be less than the interest previously owed to the bondholders, just by the fact that the company entered bankruptcy.

The two conditions where they could win are:

1. When they have liquidation preferences over the other bondholders. In this case, their claims come first at bankruptcy, which means they can end up owning the company at the expense of the other bondholders and stockholders. The company's overall profits might not be sufficient to generate a return at the interest rate of all bondholders, but it might generate returns over what a select group of bondholders would otherwise get.

2. When the company can't generate sufficient profits now, but their revenues and earnings are expected to grow over time. In this case, the new equity holders would take a significant haircut on the value of their investment at the time of bankruptcy, but improving financial positions means the value of their investment could grow to be worth significantly more than the bonds over time.

I can't rule out either of these for AI companies. The principals of many of the companies involved have a record of self-dealing that's very similar to #1 - it's illegal if it can be proven in court, but it's often very hard to prove, particularly if there are other parties involved. And the economics of AI are likely very similar to #2.

Google doesn't show ads on navigational queries because of the potential trademark-infringement legal issues that could result from recommending a competitor when somebody searches for a trademark.

Search for [carglass], no ads. Search for [facebook], no ads. Search for [spotify], no ads. Search for [american airlines], no ads. All of these would be very desirable queries to advertise a competitor on.

(IIRC they've gone back and forth on this depending on what the lawyers thought they could get away with; ISTR when Bing launched Microsoft would run ads on [google] that pointed to Bing. It's been a long time since I've seen an ad on a navigational query though.)

When you're talking political polarization on a societal level, it's a distinction without a difference. The distinction is that when you personalize by site, it's an explicit coarse-grained choice by the individual. When you personalize by algorithm, it's an implicit fine-grained choice by the individual, which is then aggregated and turned into an explicit stream of content by the algorithm. In both cases, you are adapting the content someone sees by what they want to see.

The sort of national unity that we took for granted between 1945-1995 (and to some extent from 1920-1945) was explicitly manufactured by mass media. Here technology presented the same content to all people, because it was cheaper to do it that way. Before the invention of consumer radios in 1920, we had a similar political polarization as we do today, if not even moreso. Also the Federal government was significantly weaker, lacking even powers like direct taxation, let alone the mass surveillance it has now.

OpenAI's already announced they're not going public in 2026:

https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/openai-ipo-will-not...

They could potentially do another private bridge round, but for a company that was gearing up for the largest IPO in history a couple months ago, the reversal is a pretty bad sign. For investors that are looking for a fire sale, there's already smoke in the air.

The point being made here is that most of those costs are amortized capital costs, which get wiped in bankruptcy.

That $5 per 1M token doesn't literally cost $5 per 1M token. It's more like they had to build a datacenter for $500M that can service 100T tokens over its lifetime. They did this by borrowing money on the capital markets, and now they have to pay interest to those bondholders, interest that they can recoup with their $80/1MT prices. But if it turns out they can't charge $80 and have to charge $1, they won't be able to make those interest payments. They enter bankruptcy, the court wipes the debt clean, and now they don't have to pay interest, only the actual operating costs, which may be more like 50c/1MT. The company gets recapitalized with the new owners being largely the bondholders, the existing equity holders get wiped out, and they can compete with the commodity producers now.

Eh, it's true that Google's incentives aren't really aligned with bookmarking tools, but the magnitude of the effect is much less than you're thinking of. Basically 100% of Google's revenues come from commercial-seeking queries, cases where the user has a purchasing intent before they came to the search engine. All of the non-commercial uses - coding, random facts, research, education, navigational queries, etc - are just loss-leaders so that your fingers automatically reach for Google when you're searching for lawyers, contractors, home-improvement fixtures, apps, furniture, flowers, restaurants, consumer electronics, etc. Google (of the 2010s certainly, but also true now) considered Amazon to be its primary competition, not Yahoo or del.icio.us.

They put precisely zero effort into killing bookmarks. I know because I was there, and probably would've been tasked with doing it. Well, that and because bookmarks still exist and I can still use them. They also put zero effort into improving bookmarks or making them easier for you to use, but it's death by inaction and consumer choice, not by anything Google did.

They are very common all down the SF Peninsula because of the Caltrain tracks. There's California/Carolan all through Burlingame (which has some of the most dangerous train crossings in the country because you can get stuck on the tracks between the lights), and then it follows El Camino on one side while the other one goes from Delaware (San Mateo) to Old County (San Mateo / Belmont / San Carlos) to Alma (Palo Alto) to Central Expressway (Mountain View / Sunnyvale).

The Old County lights at least are staggered so they are almost always green at the same time. The Central Expressway ones, not so much - there've been times I've been stuck for 20 minutes trying to cross the 100 feet from Moffett to Castro in Mountain View, because the light timing never lined up with the train signals.