tobias3

The EU will introduce "sanctions" via a carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM) at the end of this year. Currently the US wouldn't be affected much by this -- it only affects cement, aluminium, fertilisers, iron and steel, hydrogen and electricity for now.

It might be extended in the future, though.

> Wang and Zuckerberg have struggled to align on a timeline to achieve the chief executive’s goal of reaching superintelligence

It's a research problem. You can't treat this like normal business.

This is also why it does not make sense to invest in it without the usual research incentives, but I won't complain.

Sketchy is that then someone takes “affirmative action to delete” the data on the server as well.

Also this is not like some process crash dump where the computer keeps running after one process crashed.

This would be like an plane black box uploading its data to the manufacturer, then deleting itself after a plane crash.

That depends on the regulators being asleep on the wheel again and letting monopolies happen. At the minimum here in Europe they'd automatically fall under Digital Services Act. According to OpenAI they have 41.3 million average monthly active recipients in the European Union. Only a few million more and they fall under DSA.

That is if US sanctions don't kill the DSA.

Also extra damage if the liver is already busy with alcohol. So not good to take for a hangover.

This is why Ibuprofen is perhaps the better default painkiller.

The default with the build in sqlite in macos. Means Apple engineers made this choice.

Also it makes sense to have a capability only once within an alliance. If the US has the command, space and air capabilities, why would anyone else need to have this. You can add to their capability by buying F-35s and hosting their air bases.

Now that we are not allies anymore we need to wastefully build up our own command, space and air capabilties resulting in duplicated effort.

The problem is more severe. Previously the US government was passing laws (such as the CHIPS act) and then enforcing/executing them.

Now it is just doing whatever it wants.

This is only good for a very small sub-set of people, everyone else is worse off.

If someone from the Mafia comes to you and asks for a 10% share of your restaurant you better say yes.

Had the same thing happen to me and I am wondering how this can be legal (here in Europe). It is basically indirectly leaking search information to other users of the IP. I can think of not so bad information where it e.g. shows engagement ring ads. But I can also think of quite bad scenarios.

He quickly retracted that call back then https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/11/11/the-long-haul/

Yeah, it was a mistake taking this free trade, globalization, UN, WTO, basic human rights, ICC, change through trade, nuclear disarmament etc. stuff seriously. Cost us bigly.

This works if all the debt is long term debt (>=10Y), which surely Jellen and Bessent have been selling, right?

Your president said we had "not a great day" the last time you rescued us.

When Trump was elected, I clicked the sell button on the US treasuries and the buy button on the European ones. Was pretty easy.

It will be more costly for the people doing this later, of course.

China is more in a debt trap than even the US. Their only clean balance sheet is the central government balance sheet.

Yeah, but for taxation you need state capacity to enforce it which was chainsawed/DOGED away.

I don't get this. How can two(+) WAL operations be faster than one (double the sync IOPS)?

I think this database doesn't have durability at all.

Canada is importing Teslas from Germany now. Seems the Trump tariffs are working out great for US manufacturing in this instance.

I very much doubt that the US would allow EU institution to break up the US tech companies as they see fit. So this is not a viable approach (even if it would work).

The approach would be to gradually limit EU market access till there are other alternatives. This has worked for e.g. China.

The German defense force uses Google cloud instances for their "sovereign cloud". I very much doubt that if there were a German Hyper-scaler that it would have similar market access to contracts such as JEDI. Having a buy European requirement there is pretty much a no-brainer IMO.

I'd argue that it doesn't go far enough at this point. There are imaginable scenarios now where the US uses AWS/Microsoft like China currently uses rare earth exports or even further and AWS/Microsoft + Android/iOS are critical infrastructure. Having some "sovereign cloud" etc. won't help since this needs continuous monitoring and improvements from the mothership.

Merely doing monopoly regulation won't help. We have to actually destroy the monopolies.

You add more and more diagnostics (e.g. logging) in that area till you manage to track down the bug. Over several years this should be possible. At that point you can either fix the bug directly or do it properly by first reproducing the bug (in a test) and then fixing it.

Right, seems I can prevent AI training by marking a work here in Germany (via UrgH § 44b Abs. 3). That would be perhaps something to add to (a variant of) the GPL.

Doesn't prevent training in the US and use of the trained AI and material it produces here, I guess.

Then I have to start a civil law-suit and prove that the produced work is similar enough to the the original work. That was the step that failed in the Hellwig (Linux) vs. VMWare lawsuit.

Since AI use is based on "fair-use" how can you add a no-AI clause? Only protection I see is to not publish the code.

The btrfs devs are mainly employed by Meta and SuSE and they only support single devices (I haven't looked up recently if SuSE supports multiple device fs). Meta probably uses zoned storage devices, so that is why they are focusing on that.

Unfortunately I don't think Patreon can fund the kind of talent you need to sustainably develop a file system.

That btrfs contains broken features is IMO 50/50 the fault of up-stream and the distributions. Distributions should patch out features that are broken (like btrfs multi-device support, direct IO) or clearly put it behind experimental flags. Up-stream is unfortunately incentivised to not do this, to get testers.

Or it would be Bitcoin classic and have less/no value. See ETC vs. ETH. All depends on how many (important) market participants use which version.

That's not completely true. If there is consensus among participants (especially exchanges) to change Bitcoin (fork) they can do it.

Can't do that with Gold.

Agreed, but the Chinese want something of somewhat equal value in return nontheless. And the Chinese appetite for Sri Lankan treasuries might be limited.

They also at least need to pay for inputs and if it is only crude oil.

There are on-going EU-China talks about this topic, but currently looks like a wait-and-see approach till after the Trump 90 day deadline.

Other than that idk.

The solution would be to increase wages/less working hours/less financial repression in China so that they can buy the cars they produce...

Isn't Tesla at level 2 (eyes on road, hands on wheel)?