weatherlite

> Google makes AI profits, its in their breakdowns.

What "AI profits" exactly. Their capex is through the roof. What they're actually earning is in cloud , their own AI is lossy for sure. Who is paying for Gemini? Not many people.

Wait 1-2 months, Anthropic will come up with a shinier model and Googel will look obsolete again. I too struggle to see the moat - yes Google is able to serve their own A.I traffic but as far as I can see - at a loss. Prices keep going down because open source models. We'll see.

> From a business perspective a frontier model does not make much sense anymore if you are not a startup. Neither for Amazon, nor for Google. Their clouds need models that are fast and perform well in their agent frameworks nothing were a frontier model excels at

I don't know , if it really finds all kinds of data center optimizations, quantum breakthroughs, helping make their workers smarter and more efficient - stuff an opensource model can't quite do - there's real economic value here no ? perhaps not worth dozens of billions but it could get there really fast.

Come on but who hasn't been there really, freaking Steven Hawking was there...

Is that it though, parents with no time? Do single people with no kids socialize more than parents once they are past high school and college? Im not so sure.

> It might just be a rationalization, but the way I justify it is that as I’ve gotten older, I’ve realized more what actually matters to me, and being a party host / spending time at parties doesn’t fit that category. I’d rather spend my time doing something else.

Well it's happening to the vast majority of people all at once, I don't think it's age, at least not only that. I haven't read the whole article yet perhaps he offers ideas on why this is happening but I'm guessing - better alternatives (Netflix), increased individualism etc. Society has changed a lot.

> 3 or 4 people who I know well is optimal for me.

Even that is a challenge of finding the mental energy to pick the date , see that everyone can come, picking some activity (or if you're hosting - make sure with your wife that the date is fine. What about your kids - you wanna put them in bed before?) etc etc. Some of it is probably no big deal but my brain is making it look big, perhaps because I lean introvert as well. It's so much easier to just think about the idea and say 'naaa fuck it' and open Youtube instead.

Wow so brave

Hmmm pretty slick by Google actually

Yes, are you in Hamas ? Maybe we should meet around the fence. I can get a picnic basket.

> All humans would need to do is communicate clearly what needs to be made and flag problems as they come up.

Kinda what i'm doing already, but for the young startup I'm at that's surprisingly tons of work. I miss the days we wrote code by hand boy those were fun 8.5 hours workdays.

> Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, or celebrities, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.

The story of Palestine is also weird and profoundly depressing, a group supporting the national socialists in world war 2 and still pretty much supporting national socialism 70 years later. Good consistent track record there.

Trump is saying this daily about Iran. Saying stuff and doing stuff is not the same thing. Should someone prosecute Trump?

Bush also had similar statements after 9-11, don't think he was prosecuted.

LOL. OK it was 944000 , I was off by 56000 people. You're right, the comparison to China was totally acceptable /s

Really? "Estimates from the Office for National Statistics suggest that total net migration was 171,000 in 2025. This figure is lower than net migration levels during the 2010s and represents a sharp decline compared to the year ending March 2023, when net migration peaked at a historical high of 944,000 (Figure 2)."

So we're gonna treat 944000 as less than a million I guess? If we also count illegals, as we should since they exist and keep arriving, that year was probably around a million. Even if we don't count them - it's very close to a million.

https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/lo...

So to sum up : 2023 alone had (almost) the entire Chinese immigrant population come into the UK.

> Economic migrants didn't have their lives saved. They were not welcomed to their host country as an act of charity.

There's lots of people who are not refugees and getting into Europe. They can come from places like Morocco, Turkey, Somalia or even Syria as it is now. The strict definition of refugee won't apply to many of them - yet they are able get in and stay (how is another discussion). The best definition would be economic migrant - they are not fleeing immediate war, their main motivation is getting a better standard of living. I have no idea who you're working with but the definition refugee / legal migrant is not enough there's a lot of in between. Is it crazy to expect at least a little gratitude from such people, or in the very least no hostility ? To me it is not crazy, you can disagree.

Why do you think the distinction matters ? Whether they're refugees, low skilled economic migrants or some kind of status holders like family renuions, they get a safer and better standard of living than what they had before and they get big budgets thrown at their integrations. Otherwise - why would they come ?

> I think that the issue is less cultural and more socioeconomic. Being "other"ed your entire life sucks. Making it in another country with far more limited resources sucks. It's hard to ignore the toll it takes on the people I interact with.

You can look at it like that. Another way to look at it is those accepting countries possibly saved your life (if you're claiming you're a refugee) or in the very least gave you a much much safer existence and better healthcare and standard of living. And it's really quite a big expense on the hosting countries who aren't doing that great themselves lately.

The socioeconomics explanation irks me - when you accept a refugee / low skilled worker they are almost by definition going to be poorer than the locals. There's absolutely no way you could equate their wealth to the locals. This is no one's fault, just the reality of taking in people from poorer countries and/or with low skills. I'm also not sure it's fair to say poorer immigrants are always more violent (you didn't say this but it was implied); immigrants from Thailand, India, Philipines into Europe are actually underrepresented in crime. So yeah , this is complex I agree.

Friendly fire was a rarity and extreme minority of deaths on October 7th. Perhaps dozens out of 1200 that day. If the pilots haven't done anything realistically more civilians would have died. Do you have a better way of handling an invasion of thousands of people who came to kill and kidnap?

And this btw also goes the other direction - Hamas killed himself many Gazans either by mistake (missile falls in the wrong place) or on purpose; they are all counted as deaths by the IDF.

> it is not said honestly out loud, because it is absolutely insane, and would be rightfully rejected

I don't think not saying it out loud is helping the current policy makers; the right and the far right understood right away this was their biggest point. By not engaging them in the discussion , or engaging with hand wavy trickery, you kinda lose the debate I think.

Lol a million immigrants, that's the net inflows the U.K is getting a year with a 60 something million population.

> Now what would you say to these people in such case?

The honest thing would have been to tell them - you're right, yes there's an overrepresenation in crime - but we're working on it , it will get better in the 2nd and 3rd generation (it does but very slowly), etc. But lots of the establishment doesn't seem able to even do that - they have to completely deny the problem, by for example pulling tricks like counting immigrants from India, Thailand and MENA together, or by not allowing the collection of data at all. This is really bad policy imo.

> Facts are much lesd helpful here because half of the perceived problem is emotional.

Well in countries like Denmark and Sweden the facts do show over representation of MENA immigrants (and their descendants) in violent crime. I don't think it's something that could or should be wished away. But I also don't think it's the main issue , it's for sure also a cultural/religious clash.

1. Immigration to the U.S is very different than immigration to Europe in terms of outcome , and even immigration to Europe could be further disected; lots of differences if you come from MENA or come from Thailand

2. Not everything can be answered by gdp; there is a real issue of culture and values that could become eroded by huge influx of immigration causing societal strife.

That's realy inaccurate. If anything the more religious you are the more offsprings you have. Atheist societies are below replacement levels. What makes you think fact based thinking leads to more children making?

I'm considering becoming a model weights massage therapist - those models are working hard and carrying a lot of weight(s). I might have to relocate my life near a data center but it's worth it.

You want to read a novel about ten women making cheese in one month?

> There are already large numbers of Turks in western Europe, particularly Germany

Define large numbers. It's around 5% or even less in Germany which hosts the biggest Turkish community to the best of my knowledge, and way less in other European countries. Bringing Turkey in imo might dissolve the Union, I don't see anyone trying it soon.

> Turkey refuses to address its past with the Armenians, Kurds and Greeks which is a major concern.

It's also a dictatorship and its population is probably not in favor of liberal democracy - most (all?) Muslim countries aren't.

> I thought Turkey

Oh yeah, that's gonna be hella popular with the voters.