stymaar

It's still much more sovereign AI than renting cloud from the country who wants to invade them though.

Thank you. People love to blame regulation but no amount of regulatory simplification is going to make a Lithuanian speak Italian.

Combine it with the fact that in the media of every country the US comes far ahead of any other UE countries in terms of coverage (on any topic), you have a recipe that no amount of deregulation can ever fix.

With stateless MCP, the MCP rube goldberg everyone was calling dead in March is effectively dead though.

This is economics though, a discipline where you be like Kenneth Rogoff and Carmen Reinhart and commit the most impactful fraud of the century and face absolutely no consequence on your career.

When you compare that to the consequence of the hydroxycholoquine paper, which is comparable in public policy impact, where Didiee Raoult lost all its legitimacy and his job, it's easy to see that economics as an academic field doesn't value probity much.

> showing off his gaming skills in a game that is literally a time gated grindfest.

What was even more hilarious was the fact that he had visibly no idea of what the game was even about (he was bragging about item level instead of stat and dismissing the best item of his gear because it was lower iLevel than the rest).

Why would they use it if it's not competitive in some way though?

There's an interesting contradiction in your comment: either the Chinese models are competitive, or you wouldn't be using it!

Why would you use a cloud model that's no better than a local one though? Because if you pick Luna then you don't have to compare it to the big Chinese models, Qwen3.8-27B is what you want to compare it to, and the comparison doesn't make Luna look good.

And maybe they don't, and that's the problem with one-day-old projects: we know for sure that the programmer didn't have time to learn anything from that particular project and we now have to trust them that they know what they are doing. Unfortunately this is wrong in 90+% of the time, so that's kind of a gamble to expect one particular project to tick this box.

I'm exactly in this situation, and at the same time I get so many jumpscares when reviewing the code that I'm not going to stop anytime soon.

It's not going to happen naturally, the labs first need to implement a reinforcement learning pipeline that promotes it.

Armed robberies are done with profit motives by professionalized members of the organized crime. By definition these people have access to the kind of organization and weapons you need to mount such attacks.

Politically motivated armed attacks are a totally different thing.

Also, I think you massively underestimate the sheer size of an IA data center. If you want to destroy one with grenades you're going to need a literal truck load of grenades.

I found the article otherwise interesting, but this particular section struck me as unbelievably dumb:

> An explanation sufficient to convince me otherwise would need good answers to these four questions:

> 1. Why don’t landlords cut rents when their operating costs fall?

I genuinely can't imagine what happened in the mind of the person writing this question.

> we illustrate how conventional property taxes punish those who improve properties and invest in the city by providing housing and business, while those who own vacant lots or surface parking lots are rewarded for holding land out of use.

The reasoning makes no sense applied to land value tax though: people improve properties for their own profit, and the land value (on which the tax is raises) increases slower than the value of their own property so they aren't being deterred by the land value tax. People who don't invest on the other hand don't see increase in their profit while their taxes increase because the land value is being pumped up by those who invest.

Clever idea, too bad they didn't bother writing down their blog post themselves and posted AI slop instead.

If you consider a full fledged insurgency in a civil war setting, you're very far from “one angry dude throwing a molotov cocktail at Sam Altman's DC” that was the original point.

I don't think the US have the social fabric needed for an insurgency to develop on though.

> global warming proponents.

The only global warming proponents are the people insisting that we should keep pouring CO2 in the atmosphere.

I'm used to people assuming California = LA + Bay area, but it's the first time I see someone arguing that they don't count…

> But on the other hand, the compile time of Rust is really counterproductive.

Since it's going to be mostly cargo check and incremental builds, I don't think it matters in practice.

De Gaulle, like most of the French political elite at that time, also got a wake up call during the Suez Crisis: if you don't have the bomb you can't intervene to protect your own interests anywhere in the world, because one of the great power could block you without shooting a single bullet and the other won't come to your rescue.

Sure, but in my view any organized actor with military hardware in their hands count as a “very strong force” when compared to the average Joe with a Molotov cocktail. And Iran, as a state actor with ballistic capabilities is obviously one as well.

> b: you are still launching from earth, which is a pretty significant target if you’re worried about ecoterrorism.

This so much. Good luck destroying a DC on earth without a very strong force. On the other hand, destroying a rocket on its launchpad just take one FPV drone.

Sure, but sometimes it's better to invest for the long term, and that's among the most fundamental purpose of the State.

They consider the concrete around the plant's parking lot to be nuclear waste though (I'm not kidding, that's how the French regulations works).

> construction is heavily subsidized

It's not subsidized, quite the opposite EDF is subsidizing its competitors through ARENH.

> It's not industry secret that if you count the entire life cycle, nuclear is the most expensive (in terms of euros) energy we have.

It's not. It only appears expensive compared to other decarbonized means because the calculations never take the opportunity cost of intermittency. Wind and solar are only cheap because you never count the price of the back-up plan in the cost (and also because magnets and solar panels are bought for cheap from China). If you count the price of running an actual grid all year long then it suddenly becomes the most efficient option after hydro and that's why France has among the cheapest electricity in Europe. The German Energiewende is the canonical example of what the theoretical calculations leave out. It should have been cheaper and less carbon-heavy in the end, but instead hundreds of billions have been spent to get only expensive and high-emission electricity in the end.

>And that economic analysis does not even account for how "stolen" the uranium we use is. If France paid an actual fair price to the Françafrique countries pillaged for their uranium, it would probably be more expensive.

Come on, the Uranium coming from Niger is a just a fraction of the consumption: https://www.connaissancedesenergies.org/questions-et-reponse...

> When EDF signed a fixed cost contract to deliver nuclear in England the CFO resigned.

Yes, because they had to borrow at a 7 or 9% long term rate on the market (in the era of ZIRP!), which makes financing costs 70-80% of the overall final electricity price.

Of course that kind of deal was insane, but it says more about financing long term projects on the market than it says anything about nuclear as a technology.

> The "profits" are from running decades old reactors that were never transparently costed.

EDF gave more in subsidies to its competitors through ARENH over the past 15 years than what the entire fleet costed.

French nuclear has been an indisputable financial success over the past 40 years (while giving France one of the cheapest electricity in Europe). Saying otherwise is just ignoring reality entirely.

The only money thrown around in French nuclear is handed out to EDF's competitors by EDF themselves as a compromise with the European Commission who didn't want EDF to reap to massive profits of the nuclear plants for itself (EDF has handed out around €100B over the past 15 years and still made a profit pretty much every year, despite massive forced investments in reaction to Fukushima).

Re debt: check how much debt the SV giants have. Debt isn't a bad thing per se, it's just how you finance investments.

Its has always been state owned, and it's much better for critical infrastructures to be so anyway.

> suffering from aged power plants having issues?

There was one (1) instance if of a serious common issue between multiple plants found in 2022, unrelated to the age of the NPPs (the most recent were affected as well) which affected the exploitation for about a year. It was bad for a moment, but not that bad, it's like saying the automobile industry can't be profitable because the Tataka airbag problem happened. (And the corrosion issue was much less severe than the Tataka one!).

Decomissionning is a made-up issue: no other industrial activity is expected to return clean nature after they stopped operating, even mundane things like business offices real estate or highways wouldn't be economically viable if they had to provision for decommissioning.

You could clean up the high activity thing and let the buildings and their asbestos in place and nuclear decommissioning would still be more environmentally friendly than every other heavy industry.