kube-system

It wasn't just invented in the US, it was co-invented by the US government itself.

https://www.osti.gov/biblio/1413999

It's hardly just them. This tech has been commercialized for over a decade.

https://www.chainalysis.com/blockchain-intelligence/

They also do work to deanonymize other blockchains, including monero.

And that isn't even the original meaning either! "open source" in reference to software was itself a term stolen from the intelligence community.

"open" is simply a vague word that you are assigning more meaning to than it actually means.

Ironically, OpenAI would be trademarkable because they're not open.

OPEN describes a feature of the services provided by applicant, in that applicant provides a "public node" that is accessible to anyone and allows users to interact with the blockchain network. See attached from opennode.com. Thus, "OPEN" is descriptive of the applicant's services, in that it conveys the open and public nature of the node that the applicant provides.

https://tsdr.uspto.gov/documentviewer?caseId=sn97399846&docI...

Bringing "power" into the conversation is a whole different layer of complexity which I was not addressing. I was speaking about economics, which is in no way a zero sum game. Economic activity creates value.

Yes, incentives are why people go to work in the morning. https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PEA4012-1.html

That is one sense, but it is also use to refer to the frontier of capability. Especially in this context.

The comment you replied to is talking about China's trading partners, not the US's trading partners.

Of course it's in self interest. It's too bad that the US has gone the other direction and cut public funding for research.

China is looking after their own interests, but they absolutely don't want their largest export market to struggle. The global economy is not a zero-sum game, and the idea that it might be is the root of many of our policy issues in the US.

I'm sort of baffled by what the entities that train the open-weights models get out of it though. Is it just a direct play to undercut the US providers because they view them as a threat? I just don't really understand the business model behind it.

In China, it's because they are being heavily subsidized to do the research activity. It's not really complicated -- if you allocate public money for people do to a thing, they will do it.

Most enterprises are multi-cloud in that they have multiple direct contracts with different cloud providers.

I did in fact mean empiricism... but it is empiricism while rejecting intellectualism. They believe their personal observation and judgement are superior.

I don’t think they’re lying. They probably honestly think they are correct.

They actively reject the values of intellectualism, critical thinking, and expert consensus. They instead embrace empiricism, loyalty, and the great man theory.

It’s a recipe for severe Dunning-Kruger.

When I was in school decades ago, the consequences were that the teacher would single you out and scold you to “follow directions”, maybe they’d do whatever write up for not following directions. I’m sure in some places kids got detention or letters sent home to their parents, etc.

Also the US did not get rid of corporal punishment entirely, the south still has it in some places. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_corporal_punishment_in_...

The #1 rule of marketing is that people's actions rarely line up with what they say they're going to do.

This is not exactly the same thing, this isn't Boeing being allowed to sign off on their design -- this is only the airworthiness certificate which means "this particular airplane we just built follows the spec which was already otherwise approved".

I have read that self-issuance of airworthiness certificates has been normal since the 1950s. Given that, I don't think the issue is due to regulatory corruption but an issue at Boeing which has (hopefully) been resolved.

0.1% in 2025, which is honestly higher than I thought it would be. I've never even seen one.

English adjectives are highly contextual. In this context, the author's clear meaning is in context to the current generative AI boom.

Which means that this font is entirely useless unless it is implemented in a way that breaks screen readers.

It's easy to get that impression when you're buying stuff from the big box store, because it's all race to the bottom type stuff.

When I run into this issue in any product category, I can solve it by searching for a solution from an "industrial" or "commercial" supplier. It'll cost 10x, but it'll usually work, and if it doesn't you'll at least be able to talk to someone who knows what they're doing.

In just about any product category, there is very little quality difference within the same order of magnitude in cost.

The ones that look old are old. The USG has newer design systems that you'll see used on many of the websites that have been redesigned more recently: https://designsystem.digital.gov/

This admin gutted both NOAAs budget and workforce so a website redesign is probably low priority at the moment.

Yeah, the much more common scenario with startups is exactly what happened here:

1. you choose a name for your product, start using it

2. you try registering it as your business starts to materialize

3. "oh shit we weren't the only ones who picked that name"

Well, clearly they can:

https://static.ietf.org/logos/ietf.svg

The mere "pre-existing use" of a word or phrase does not disqualify a trademark.

Maybe you're thinking of prior art in a trademark? Or trademark genericization? But neither would apply here.

No, public benefits are allowed to include public interest reasons in their decision making, they are not required.

This structure was created to allow a business to protect the interest of the public when it conflicts with the interests of their shareholders

I've seen it happen with a grocery store website, oddly enough.

It wouldn't be an all-or-nothing type scenario -- and in fact there is already no common international agreement about where a nation's boundary extends to in the z-axis. The observed limit is "however high that country can detect and shoot something down"

I think most current wars in progress have much less logical reasons for happening