elefanten

But it’s not just GPUs that result from it but also a lot of other infrastructure including, prominently, energy.

And beyond physical infrastructure there are the intangible assets: the learning and the process innovation across multiple fields.

The upfront price for all that may end up steep, or fair, or even cheap… the truth is no one knows yet

Frustrating the site doesn’t give any idea of what you’re supposed to be able to see with them on.

I think by “something popular” gp meant an industry that people are excited to be in — which dovetails with your implication about accepting low pay for a way in the industry

It’s not remotely hypothetical you’d have to be living under a rock to believe that. And the fusion with a one-party state government that doesn’t tolerate huge swathes of thoughtspace being freely discussed is completely streamlined, not mediated by any guardrails or accountability.

This “no harm to me” meme about a foreign totalitarian government (with plenty of incentive to run influence ops on foreigners) hoovering your data is just so mind-bogglingly naive.

Literal Trump Derangement Syndrome. America has a comically horrendous president but remains fundamentally a liberal democracy… and Canada concludes “literal Nazis are a better choice”. It’s uncanny how much can be taken for granted :(

(American talking, who’s had multiple Canadian friends make this mind boggling overcorrection)

DeepSeek uses merchant silicon like everyone else.

edit: I misunderstood, I thought you were implying they designed their own GPUs. nevermind

Thank you for sharing, that is interesting to hear.

It bears repeating that I do not presume a monolithic opinion of the citizens of China or the culturally Chinese diaspora.

I balance that against the reactions and attitudes that I do experience, in proportion to how often I experience them.

I am categorically against invasions and conquest of land by force. We live in the year 2026, not the year 1985. I set my priorities accordingly.

But to gp's point, that is a principle. Perhaps not yours, but they outlined their stance and stuck to it despite threats and consequences.

Contrast Sam's OpenAI announcement which was very carefully worded to appear to uphold the same principles, but is currently being rightfully disassembled as retaining various potential outs that would allow violating the signaled principles.

Honest and staunch about clearly stated principles is better than wiggly and dishonest about weasel-worded impressions of a principle.

And all of that is orthogonal to whether you (or anyone) agrees with a given principle or given revealed behavior.

How do they feel about and respond when asked about the Taiwan question?

Do they either clam up or act like it's a mortal insult to suggest that an independent democratic nation should not live in fear of impending violent conquest?

Because that's the kind of reaction that makes the reports of "happy life, all's good" a little harder to digest.

Not saying that's a unanimous opinion / response, of course. But it certainly seems to be the default.

Maybe worth asking for anyway? They might just be setting metrics based on the most popular ways of measuring but if they care about the spirit of the offer it would make sense for them to be flexible with the letter of the requirements.

Exactly and that danger grows as the ability to do so in increasingly automated and targeted ways increases. Should be very obvious now looking at the world around us.

Also, failing to consider the legal and rights regime of the attacker is wild to me. Look at what happens to people caught spying for other regimes. Aldrich Ames just died after decades in prison, and that’s one of the most extreme cases — plenty have got away with just a few years. The Soviet assets Ames gave up were all swiftly executed, much like they are in China.

Regimes and rights matter, which is why the democracy / autocracy governance conflict matters so much to the future trajectory of humanity.

Source on that? Hadn’t seen that

Yup yup. Evil NATO denying the native “panslavism” that all Slavic people yearn for, to put them safely into the Russian yoke they so love.

/s

When one is this far gone into a nationalist information bubble haze, it ceases to be productive to argue with them. Everything this poster demands to be “shown” is openly available in abundance from the relevant victims, decades of it. But offered such material they will quickly categorically dismiss it all and move goal posts again.

Yes when CCP undertakes an ethnonationalist settler campaign into Tibet and then instructs the settlers to “call for help”, it can be presented as Tibet “asking” for CCP authoritarianism. Same playbook as Russia in eastern Ukraine.

Yes, when the Xinjiang muslim population is terrorized by police state and concentration camps in a country with no free speech, it is hard to find locals publicly complaining and advocating for themselves.

Let’s start with it being hell bent on annexing a peaceful independent island democracy, by force if needed, because of their own political insecurities.

The examples expand from there, but that one alone is sufficient.

It’s quite plainly the CCP that is the Nazi regime of the 21st century.

In addition to the factors named by sibling comments, which I largely agree with, there is also the rise of short form entertainment on these platforms.

In 2004, social media was mostly text, images and low-fidelity game experiences like Mafia Wars. Compare to a bottomless scroll of immediate-attention-hook optimized, algorithmically targeted video content found on TikTok / Instagram.

The social behaviors got zombified out of the audience.

Isn’t it just an hn convention?

I agree with your comment I’m replying to completely, but the date tag doesn’t have to be an indictment (as you yourself suggest)

Spot on. And the mistake of considering appeasement of said totalitarian superpower by “letting them have it” would be just as enormous.

Normalize that to global and it won’t look quite so stark. Not saying India’s development is unimpressive but let’s put things in a real context

The Sims also still prints money and there's a new version due soon-ish. But, basically, yes agreed.

Classically it doesn't, but colloquially it does. The dreaded "language changes and evolves" defense that frustrates pedants everywhere.

(I say this in the friendly spirit of a long-defeated fellow pedant who has hit people with your exact comment for decades)

I concur with this take. Like many facets of culture, some people/groups will project what they want onto a given cultural entity (South Park, in this case), but that doesn’t mean one should assume they speak for it.

For example, the “men’s rights activists” group appropriated the idea of “the red pill” from The Matrix. They certainly differ wildly in worldview from the Wachowski siblings.

A lot beyond the scope of the time I have to comment here. Read it with an open mind, knowledge of tech business, knowledge of how things unfolded since it was published and see for yourself.

But some short hand:

-Assumes vertical integration is necessarily abusive

-Assumes lowering price is necessarily a setup for anti-competitive practices. This one’s particularly ironic because lowering prices is definitely a first-order good for consumers and businesses that buy those goods. Bezos’ famous saying was “your margin is my opportunity” —- would you rather the standard continue to be massive retailer markup profit that goes straight to retail corps?

-Vague scare tactic claims that expanding into media production etc will somehow (yadda yadda, Step 2: ???) lead to monopolies in every category they enter.

The TLDR of the problem with Neobrandeis is it forms a very opinionated paranoid notion that size can only lead to bad things and no good things. It is a lazy dodge around the traditional responsibility of regulators to identify and regulate actual anti-competitive behavior when it actually happens By constraining companies from using any form of size or integration-related advantage, it lowers the pressure to actually be competitive and innovative for everyone else. I’m not saying everything should be unconditionally allowed, there’s a balance to strike. But when you just have a blunt “anti-size” hammer, you’re gonna do collateral damage to a healthy competitive ecosystem in a damaging way.

I agree with your general point, but Khan was excessively trigger happy in a way that highlights exceptions to your observation. E.g. blocking Meta acquisition of Within was nonsense that did nothing to validate the concept of VR fitness as a promising category (anytime soon)

Edit: Within, not Withings

https://www.yalelawjournal.org/pdf/e.710.Khan.805_zuvfyyeh.p...

She got boosted by an insurgent group of law professors who spearhead whats called the Neobrandeis moment. Their theory is that anti-trust should be preemptively enforced against size for its own sake.

This is the article she wrote for her law review as a law student which put her on their radar and they started calling her a "rising star" etc etc, which snowballed into the performative appointment by the Biden admin.

Feel free to read through it.

Doesn't have to be a perfect success rate... how about just something other than abysmal failure rate?

Asserting a sloganized refrain is not very convincing. Make a real argument. Here are some counterpoints to "big is bad" Neobrandeisianism: -Scale enables better economics for certain businesses which consumers and other businesses then benefit from. -Large size allows additional speculative cutting edge R&D funding which the whole world benefits from even if it never pays off. -Being big on its own is almost never a cheat code to permanent monopoly / monopsony lock-in, especially in the technology business. That comes from actual anti-competitive behavior or regulatory capture (which ARE the parts that should be regulated, rather than targeting or preventing size for its own sake).

The S&P point is more than a bit overstated and it also doesn't really matter? The subset of the S&P that's performing well will naturally get weighted higher over time, until the performance changes. It doesn't really matter if the S&P is driven by 5 enormous companies or 500 equally-sized ones. Whatever works at the moment is what gets rewarded with capital -- that's the point of the system and it's been more effective than any alternatives. Besides, it'd be poor investing practice to be literally all-in on the S&P.

Her opinion should not be taken seriously on the matter. It's not just the empirically terrible track record she had as a regulator and the baffling cases she brought to bear (imo proof of your point that she had an overgeneralized bias). It's also that she was demonstrably inexperienced at the time she was selected! It was clearly performative political appointment, which the Biden administration was pretty egregious about (and so have both Trump administrations, this is not a political point).

The essay (literally, a homework assignment she did at law school) for which she became famous that criticizes Amazon for being big is so chock full of errors, misconstructions and faulty logic, that it's an indictment of some really poor political habits and instincts that the US is prone to. That due diligence in vetting her as a rigorous and informed thinker on the topic failed is an unequivocal failure.

The capitalization makes it a Tesla reference, which has notoriously been promising that as an un-managed consumer capability for years, while it is not yet launched even now.