I suspect the concern is that no one, including China itself knows how strong they would be in a military conflict, since they haven’t been in an at scale conflict in living memory, using economic power instead to great effect.
If they are really wanting to violently assert their view on Taiwan, they want global attention divided.
So your take is that because the US has misbehaved, then Russia should misbehave harder? Not that the nations should behave better in general…
If they marketed on the actual capability, customer executives won’t be as eager to open their wallet. Get them thinking they can reduce headcount and they’ll fall over themselves. You tell them your staff will remain about the same but some facets of their job will be easier, and they are less likely to recognize the value.
The research I saw mentioning LLMs as being fairly good at chess had the caveat that they allowed up to 20 attempts to cover for it just making up invalid moves that merely sounded like legit moves.
I remember seeing that, and early on it seemed fairly reasonable then it started materializing pieces out of nowhere and convincing each other that they had already lost.
Because the business leaders are famously diligent about putting aside the marketing push and reading into the nuance of the research instead.
To reinforce this, just had a meeting with a software executive who has no coding experience but is nearly certain he’s going to lay off nearly all his employees because the value is all in the requirements he manages and he can feed those to a prompt just as well as any human can.
He does tutorial fodder introductory applications and assumes all the work is that way. So he is confident that he will save the company a lot of money by laying off these obsolete computer guys and focus on his “irreplaceable” insight. He’s convinced that all the negative feedback is just people trying to protect their jobs or people stubbornly not with new technology.
Why should that be bundled with peripherals… doesn’t seem to be a good “synergy”.
That is your use case, that relative to your individual usage only one application uses the framework. In that very specific scenario, sure. However with electron it’s forced to be that way for every single application no matter what your scenario is.
If electron packaged as a dependency, then it would be similar. But it’s always forcibly bundled.
On the scientific discoveries, we have gotten the low hanging fruit. The twentieth century was remarkable, but the limitations of physics are harsh. A lot of excitement as we went from barely pulling off heavier than air flight to a moon landing in under 50 years. Media naturally imagined space exploration to be just a matter of time. Alas everything is exponentially harder and any further loopholes are supremely elusive.
Probably the one area with a great deal of unrealized potential would be biology, because the ethical easy forward is slow.
The thing is that while people struggle harder and harder for a smaller chunk of scraps, they still have a lot of quality of life improvements over the standard of living back in the 70s.
You almost certainly have decent access to passable air conditioning, which was far from a given back then. Even if you can’t afford decent health care, the sporadic health care you can get is still better than the standard of care then. You can have a 60 inch television and more content provided to it than you could imagine… You can instantly engage with people all over the world.
Sea steading, BioShock here we come…
But seriously the fact that anyone ever mentions Mars colonization as a realistic strategy to do better than earth shows how stupid they are. Imagine the least habitable biome on earth where no one wants to live, imagine it even worse by unchecked climate change and realize it’s still just ashtoningly easier to live there than the most optimistic expectations of Mars.
He’s always been team Elon, and team Elon also likes to be contrarian and ‘edgy’, so that aligned with being pro Trump. He also wants to ditch government spending and regulation, which aligns to a claimed GOP principle (though they love spending so it’s a lie). So now he’s faced with the reality that everyone else already knew, the Republicans spend like crazy, even less responsibly than Democrats.
He basically wants a party to represent the perspective of ‘screw poor people’ as it’s one and only tenant.
While it is true he has been crappy and not really that smart pretty much from the onset, the world would have been happy to continue perpetuating the myth of Musk as the real world Tony Stark.
People wanted that narrative, certain people profited immensely off the myth, and there wasn’t much practical downside apart from it being really unjustified for these folks to get so rich, but we accept that downside constantly.
It passed the house but not quite yet the Senate and it looks like it will have to go back to the house because the Senate has changed it.
Yes, as common as that is, in the scheme of driving it is relatively anomolous.
By hours in car, most of the time is spent on a freeway driving between two lines either at cruising speed or in a traffic jam. The most mind numbing things for a human, pretty comfortably in the wheel house of driving.
Once you are dealing with pedestrians, signs, intersections, etc, all those despite ‘common’ are anomolous enough to be dramatically more tricky for these systems.
I think this is a discussion about what the hypothetical ‘legal’ way for this to go down would be. It’s not really an assertion that it would actually work, but just a description of what the process would be.
This has deviated from “would such a move be justified?” to “how could such a move be legally pursued?”. It may still end in the same place, but we can’t pretend the courts would treat the “just stop paying without a judgement” as “legal”. Might proceed in an illegal fashion as the only reasonable way through though.
It’s not saying the states are acting capriciously or even unreasonably, it’s just that the system would treat it as such
The system would declare the proper remediation is the states suing for their funds and having the justice system fix it. If the justice system so orders the dispersement and federal gov refuses to pay out, then I could imagine the settlement terms permitting the state to deduct owed funds from their payments. If the justice system fails to rule appropriately, then the state doesn’t have legal recourse, but it may still make sense to take their recourse anyway.
In practice, the office is afforded quite a bit of unilateral power. Yes, other parts of the government can counteract, but at least in practice by default the executive branch can do quite a bit.
Yeah but their violence in Ukraine dilutes NATO military attention, even if they aren’t that powerful a direct military ally.