piva00

Framing it that way hides all the levers used to tilt the playing field for US companies, no?

The government that removed restrictions on how private companies can access capital after a certain scale (the JOBS Act), that removed the need for private companies to report as if they were a public company after a shareholder threshold was crossed, superpowering the access of wealthy private investors to get in earlier in a growing company while at the same blocking the public from participating in funding growing enterprises at an earlier stage (since it required companies to IPO much earlier to access capital) which allowed retail investors to also reap the rewards on funding them early when they grew to become behemoths (like Amazon, Meta/Facebook, Google, etc.).

It's not fair in either place, the USA has its own model of unfairness, China has a completely different one. The difference is that in the USA the government allows private investors to become more powerful than the State (outside of the monopoly of violence) while plunging the rest of society into increasingly more precarious lives while in China the State is the power and its legitimacy only exists while the population feel they have a better life.

It's always very intentional, especially with Meta/Facebook.

That's their whole modus operandi, a privacy nightmare which will feed their infinite money machine.

Reading "Careless People" didn't make me surprised at all on how the company operates, it surprised me with the personal descriptions of how people like Mark Zuckerberg and Sherryl Sandberg actually are as humans. It scared me how most people at that level of wealth and power isn't too different from the accounts in the book, they're all seriously deranged people with a gigantic lever to impose their distorted realities upon the rest of humanity.

I disagree completely. I recommend you to read "In the Swarm" by Byung-Chul Han as a primer.

People on the internet are tiring because how they interact is shaped to turn everything into a binary, the platforms where people spout their opinions don't foster any kind of actual human communication, it's just a farce of it with a never-ending shit-flinging-fest. If that's what you incentivise for you will only get the worst of people's outbursts.

If your brain hasn't been completely rotted by internet discourse then you will find that having hard conversations in the real world is still possible, that disagreeing while being curious and courteous about someone else's worldview is possible. It doesn't happen when people are so far down the internet rabbit hole that their real life persona is just a shadow of what their internet persona is, otherwise you will find that people offline can be much more reasonable, that you can have a discussion without resorting to shit-flinging from the binary "you are transgressive vs we are in-agreement".

You should try, it's very refreshing to realise that the real world is still not the internet, as much as social media companies are trying to make it.

We're on the same boat, after decades on the internet it's really sad to realise that the thing which gave me knowledge, a career, friends, hobbies, and connections to people and things I'd never have discovered otherwise has rotted, and it's rotting societies with it.

I found solace on the offline world though, going back to being a "local", participating in activities where the internet is far away. It's a cliché but being present in the real world is actually what solved my mourning of what the internet was.

There's no consensus on the definition of terrorism though, and it's so broad that you could use it for calling any kind of violent protest as terrorism.

A thing to keep in mind: when people feel they have no voice they inevitably will resort to violence for their political aims. It's just a fact that terrorism, in its broadest sense, will happen if powerless people don't see any other possible avenue for their political opinions to be taken into account.

> My point is this: OpenAI and Anthropic are pulling stunts like this because they don’t care about you and your subscription. So stop caring about them.

Exactly where I landed, I had a personal subscription last year that shifted between OpenAI and Anthropic depending on who had the better model for that month.

This year? I don't need that, I can do the same as you: budget and pre-pay for some tokens in OpenRouter, and use very cheap models for absolutely anything I need on my personal projects. I can use open source harnesses that give me similar results, my projects do not need the absolute most-expensive frontier model at all, that's just a waste.

And if absolutely needed to use some frontier capability I can pay the tokens for that instead of committing to US$ 200-500 for a subscription that they can just pull the rug from me at any point.

I still have my job where they give me access to all the shiny expensive models with their enterprise agreements about data retention, the legal stuff that a company cares about and my personal projects don't, if I keep my usage under the newly implement monthly budget no one will bother me about it and so I just use what I'm told to.

In Sweden I have looked up someone's phone number through the info I got from the license plate to notify the owner of a BMW M5 that their 20 years old son was often speeding down the 30km/h street close by my house where kids would cross coming from the metro or a bus stop nearby.

The owner just thanked me, and said was going to have a chat with the driver. Never saw that car speeding nearby again.

Because then it's not Formula 1 anymore, Formula 1 is about the prototype engineering competition paired with the driver's competition. Without one of them it's a different motorsport.

> Yes, and I would again if I had no better option. Don't mistake me for a "bolsonarist" though. It's more of a not-worker's party thing. There is exactly one politician that once upon a time represented me: Enéas Carneiro.

Sorry but I do understand why someone else dismissed you in other comments, you're a nutcase and so we should stop this right now.

I have absolutely no respect, no patience anymore (since I've spent too much of it trying to empathise and engage in good faith) to engage or converse with someone who votes for Bolsonaro, and would continued voting for him.

No matter your dislike of the Worker's Party, you're being anti-human by giving your support to someone like him just for hatred over a party. Unfortunately you're just another side of the same problem of this plagued country that Brazil is, and you won't ever be able to see that.

The Folha link displays a paywall even on reader-mode.

> I'm not even gonna argue with this.

Shutting down a conversation is not a good look for your argumentation. There was a soft coup, politically orchestrated to use a budgeting maneuver done by almost all previous administrations as an impeachable offense. I also didn't like Dilma as a leader but denying this is denying reality.

Just so I know who I'm arguing with: did you vote for Bolsonaro and would vote again for him?

Meddling is involving officials from a government into the process, providing support (through financial or state powers) to a specific candidate. Anything related to a 3rd country's political body participating directly (or indirectly) in the electoral process is meddling.

> "Election meddling (or foreign electoral intervention/interference) by a foreign country is any action by a foreign government, or its agents, aimed at influencing, undermining, or disrupting the electoral process of another sovereign nation."

Blatantly pro-Lula? Globo is quite well-known for being against the Worker's Party for decades, including manipulating the editing of the debate from Lula's first attempt on a presidency election in the 1990s.

The Folha link is behind a paywall, can't read it, otherwise the Valor one states Gilmar Mendes is also responsible for a change in the debate format which caused Flávio Bolsonaro to withdraw. Seems more like a shitshow being played by all sides to score points with their own camps.

And yup, Brazil is far gone after the whole soft coup of Dilma putting Temer in power, getting Bolsonaro elected and having Lula a third time. Brazilian politics is stuck, a huge share of the blame also goes to the Evangelicals who are, for a lack of better words, a pretty stupid cohort of voters.

> This is not "interference", it's just normal speech.

It's not normal speech for a 3rd party country to openly meddle in another sovereign country's democratic process. This isn't and shouldn't be accepted anywhere.

Hence why whenever it's been done it's through covert operations.

> an openly partidarian electoral court judge simply decided that it was illegal for anyone to mention current president Lula in the presidential debate that was supposed to be held on national television

I don't see any news mentioning this, at all, the only reason I found for the debate to be cancelled was the inclusion of 2 candidates over the 4 initially invited for it.

Sources?

It's true on the relationship between states while social effects linger for much longer. For example: there's still plenty of animosity from Polish people towards Germans, not in a violent way but more as a priori background distrust of German actions, any perceived transgression has a much bigger backlash than towards other nations due to history passed down by generations of people telling each other about the horrors their ancestors suffered.

It's the kind of thing that takes centuries to fizzle out, like between Denmark and Sweden, after 200-300 years the wars waged before that are mere historical artefacts used for jesting. If Denmark had been on the Axis-side willingly and tried to invade Sweden in the 1940s this would be a completely different relationship.

So yes, people will overcome historical grievances but it might take many generations, for us living right now it might not ever happen before we are dead.

Suits are not practical clothing for daily life, it's just natural it faded away to special occasions, and even there it's only because of tradition, ties are the most dorky-looking accessory if you really think about it without associating suits with looking good by default.

I own tailored suits, Italian dress shoes, tailored shirts, silk ties (both neckties as well as bow ties). I'm writing this from experience, I had a whole 15 years phase of being interested in clothing for men.

You can also look way better with contemporary clothing, designed with beautiful cuts forming interesting silhouettes, just don't buy bad-looking/cheap-looking clothes. Those can also be much more practical for daily use, they can be made with great fabrics (including wool), are usually easier to take care of, and don't make you look like a try-hard with a formal attire in day-to-day situations.

Casual clothes are not just sweatpants, jeans, hoodies, etc. there's a whole world of contemporary clothes that aren't chinos with polos and boat shoes.

Suits have become symbols of power, if you are not trying to look like that but want to look good there are plenty of other options available...

Because I'm not focusing on ambient temperatures, and have no idea why do you think this is the major impact from a warming climate at all.

The major issues about climate change are not about the comfort of ambient temperature to humans, far from it.

(And yes, I did take a cursory look at all the links)

How would that mean less deaths in a global scale? Show me your line of thought on how less food, less access to drinkable water, including all the social strife, violence, etc. that scarcity of those basic resources bring, mean less deaths.

> What would be ideal situation according to your subjective opinion? More cold areas? More ice? More humidity? Do you actually belive that we should and can change weather? Isn't that against nature?

Ideal situation is to stop artificially increasing the concentration of CO2 to allow nature to vary this concentration on much longer natural cycles as it's been, which allow not only humans but other lifeforms to adapt to it without causing mass death.

What do you mean "actually believe that we should and can change weather"? Do you understand what climate is, and its relationship to weather patterns? Do you understand how humans have changed the climate through burning fossil fuels? Do you understand the magnitude of increased energy being trapped in the atmosphere from those human actions?

Or wait, are you one of those who do not believe the evidence of climate science at all?

> you don't find unarrogant people saying things like "If you don't care so much about adding something significant to the world..."

I think text distorts what I meant with that, I personally don't care much about adding something significant to the world, not anymore at least.

I found my peace by pursuing what interests me personally even though I know it might not be of much significance to anyone else, and that I won't be pursuing the path of "adding something significant" just for the prestige of it in my life.

In a sense it's the opposite of arrogance since I care much more that the person is enjoying the process of whatever they are doing rather than the results of it. I've seen too many bright friends end up miserable chasing it, I've felt too miserable myself when putting too much focus on that, I'd rather have people enjoying doing what they are interested at if it's not something harmful.

Might be quite a bit more than a couple, mine are from mid-2024 and cost less than half than current prices.

I've been tracking 12TB HDD prices for replacing a faulty one in my NAS for the past 6 months, I bought 4x 12TB HDD in 2024 for a total of 13k SEK (around 1300 USD) and right now a single one of the same brand/model is selling for 6750-7000 SEK (~675-700 USD).

It is 2x the price of just 2 years ago, it's too bad.

No, it's not, unless you think drought, crop failures, desertification of arable land, etc. is good for humanity.

> substantial prison term for what is probably the most massive corruption scheme in all of history

It was definitely not the most massive corruption scheme in all of history. That's a lot of hyperbole or just you parroting the old propaganda used at the time.

Nonetheless, Brazilian politics is all incredibly corrupt and nothing will improve about it in the foreseeable future, it's only getting worse.

Bolsonaro was the one who opened the floodgates for betting sites after Temer's law though.

> I used to think like this, but eventually I realized it's mostly just a way to pat yourself on the back. And ironically, I rarely saw people doing significant things waste energy talking like that, since there's no benefit in the exercise.

I don't get what exactly you are talking about as a reply to my comment, what exercise exactly? Deciding if something is worth spending time if you're having fun with it?

> If anything now when something seems trivial or like a toy, but it has a lot of traction, I want to spend energy figuring out why is it more meaningful than it appears.

Sure, if you're having fun (and in fun I include a sense of accomplishment, curiosity, whatever tickles you) with that, go for it.

It's a strangely arrogant reply to my comment, perhaps you read something into it that I didn't say and replied to that?

I believe it completely depends on your values and perspective, as a poor analogy: when mobile apps were a novelty a bunch of them were just that, novelties, the beer drinking app, the flicking a Zippo-esque app, and many more that hadn't much functionality, were more a tech demo, cool toys, etc.

If you don't care so much about adding something significant to the world, and your LLM-buttons-wrapper is a novelty, chug along and see where it goes if you're having fun. Looking for what value mean at this moment is a much harder effort, and probably a luck-based endeavour.

I don't have fun creating LLM-wrappers or at least haven't thought of a fun idea for it that could be even a fun novelty to work on so personally I'm not doing it but I'm using LLMs for other fun stuff that required much more of my free time before.

Meta pulls >100B USD in profits, an added fine of even a few hundreds millions USD could be worth it depending on cost-benefit.

I asked what other enforcement mechanisms there could be since an added fine isn't really teeth-y enough unless it follows the EU model for privacy violations: initial fine and a requirement to change behaviour, no change in behaviour increases the fine up to 6% global revenue, and the fines will keep coming until the behaviour is changed.

Perhaps for the company you work at it might not be worth it but we are talking about one of the most profitable companies in the history of mankind.

Wouldn't the ones in the background match exactly this part of your point though?

> if you are not targeting any individual in particular.

Fines can be just a cost for the business of training AI if they deem it valuable enough. Is there any enforcement apart from fines?

Is it a requirement to pay $25 to get a passport photo in the USA?

My passport photo is taken by the police authority when I go there for renewing my ID card + passport.