nabla9

Just remember that Tyler Cowen sings the song of funders of Cowen's Emergent Ventures: Peter Thiel, Schmidt Futures, Fast Grants (The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative)

Their revenue is flat for last 4 years. They have established their status outside top 10 manufacturers and losing EV market share to Chinese and Europeans.

  Car revenue: -11%
  operating margin: 3.86%
  Free cash flow -30% 

The specific cited anti-competitive behaviors (from DOJ and EU Commission is) are related to violating anti-steering provisions (companies forbidden for directing towards other payments methods), tying and bundling (in-app purchase requirements), self-preferencing (obvious), "tap-to-pay" monopoly, and blocking third party app-stores.

No. This is a result of a market failure caused by monopoly power. Regulators must make sure market capitalism works.

I'm not sure what is the basis for your question but using market definition where Google Play and Apple Store are in the same market is not correct (market definition is essential part of any monopoly regulation).

Markets are defined by choice of practice, not by choice in principle.

There is no ideological argument for voluntary action here. The entire goal is to force regulators to step in. The debate over 'good vs. bad companies' is just online noise and rhetorical trik, no one on either side of the political spectrum wants these systems to be fixed voluntarily with corporate altruism.

The operating cost is the maximum Apple can come up with when their accountants attribute everything they possibly can to digital sales for the sake of legal argument. R&D shouldn't really be included, and Apple uses those same tools and APIs themselves. I think the actual profit margin is closer to 90%, and Apple could maintain a 20% margin with just a 3–4% fee.

Apple’s App Store profits on commissions from digital sales

    Revenue          $32 B
    Operating Costs   $7 B [1]
    Estimated Profit $25 B 
    Operating Margin ~78%

Apple could take just 7% cut and still make 20% profits.

Fun Fact: During the Epic trial, it was revealed that Apple's profit margins on the App Store were so high that even Apple's own executives were sometimes surprised by the internal financial reports.

---

edit: There is no ideological argument for voluntary action here. The entire goal is to force regulators to step in. The debate over 'good vs. bad companies' is just online noise and rhetorical trik, no one on either side of the political spectrum wants these systems to be fixed voluntarily with corporate altruism.

This is not improving anything. Overly complex and starting from scratch. They should have picked dome existing package manager instead and contributed to it. Yet another package manager is not justifiable anymore. Always starting new package manager from scratch is the bane of oss it seems.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_software_package_manag...

This is a waste of Sovereign Tech Fund money. That money is supposed to fund the digital sovereignty of Germany and Europe. Yet, they put €500,000 into this. It seems open-source developers have their own way of performing their own version of corporate capture.

Technical details only verify Wasm's potential. Wide adoption is not a technical matter.

Just like with JVM and other better options before and after it, it's politics, interests and momentum. JVM in the browser was not killed by technology, it was killed by Microsoft. Similarly, we should look who gains and loses relative to other if Wasm becomes mainstream.

Easy portability and less platform dependence. Who wants it, who does not? Apple, Microsoft, Google, ...

Just like with JVM the Wasm can be killed with wrong embrace. Microsoft Java Virtual Machine (MSJVM) was named in the United States v. Microsoft Corp. antitrust civil actions, as an implementation of Microsoft's "Embrace, extend and extinguish" strategy. Adopt JVM, remove portability with extensions.

As it was retrospective study, I really hope they made sure that test images were not in a training set of the algorithm. If they were, the whole study is meaningless.

The US attack had no intent to control territory. It was to nab one guy. Second paragraph establishes that after intent, there must be de facto control of the territory.

1. Attack intent to control did not happen.

2. De facto control of Venezuelan territory did not happen.

That's not what it says.

The bet uses it's own definition.

It's written there.

I'm looking at it right now but not copy pasting it here.

US did not invade Venezuela by the definition of the bet.

This market will resolve to "Yes" if the United States commences a military offensive intended to establish control over any portion of Venezuela between November 3, 2025, and January 31, 2026, 11:59 PM ET. Otherwise, this market will resolve to "No".

For the purposes of this market, land de facto controlled by Venezuela or the United States as of September 6, 2025, 12:00 PM ET, will be considered the sovereign territory of that country.

The resolution source for this market will be a consensus of credible sources.

The demonetized video 37 min:

The Epstein Files are Worse Than You Think! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAJf2F1BbRA

Do Chinese have closed weight models?

Baidu has https://ernie.baidu.com/ open weight model but do they use closed model in some of their projects or internally?

Just like in previous incidents they:

1. asked the ship raise its anchor, and move to a safe anchorage in Finnish territorial waters.

2. It was boarded inside Finnish territorial waters and seized there.

The police was in contact with ship's flag state, Saint Vincent & the Grenadines. Flag state can give permission to board the ship if it's not complying.

Seizing a ship in international waters is a serious violation of sovereignty unless it falls under very specific exceptions outlined in UNCLOS: piracy, slave trade, illegal broadcasting, or drug trafficking. Also ships without nationality have no protection and can be boarded by anyone.

The legislation merely establishes the fund but does not allocate any money to it - setting up the framework for any future contributions, whether they be through the city or privately donated.

Feel good legislation and symbolic gesture. There is nothing wrong with feel good, but this is not breaking news.

Oh. It was not you, and not the original.

It was Waldemar Horwat and js2 https://web.archive.org/web/20111217124744/https://mxr.mozil...

Yes. But that prototype was in CL.

Brendan Eich wanted the language be some dialect of Lisp language but his superiors insisted on a language similar to Java. So he wrote that prototype in Common Lisp. It's basically Java like syntax over Common Lisp structs and vectors.

You could form a cooperative that periodically negotiates with providers a cheaper bulk price. If the co-op grows into millions of users they could start having their own data centers.

Each person should still have to pay for their usage, but the price could be cheaper.

That's not a loophole. Non-exclusive licensing agreement is the opposite of loophole.

DJB has a good counter "Looking at some claims that quantum computers won't work" https://blog.cr.yp.to/20250118-flight.html

In the middle of the text he specially addresses Peter Gutmann's argument.

It's a non-exclusive deal.

No reason for antitrust action whatsoever.

Natural languages being in MCSL (Mildly Context-Sensitive) is the consensus among linguistics, not some random individual's viewpoint.

Strictly speaking natural languages fit into Context-Sensitive (Type-1) in Chomsky Hierarchy, but that's too broad to be useful.

In practice they are classified into MCSL (Mildly Context-Sensitive) subcategory defined by Aravind K. Joshi.

They are combined. Chomsky Hierarchies are the core of modern Computer science because they map perfectly into automata theory. They are always taught together in computer science.

E.g. would it be possible to create an algorithm that takes a grammar (and maybe a desired context window size) as input and constructs a transformer network that generates sentences exactly from that grammar?

You don't need transformers for what you describe. That's 101 theory of computation class where you learn about automata, grammars, parsers, and generators.

You saw name "Noam Chomsky" and that started a process in your mind that generated the standard spiel about Syntactic Structures.

Chomsky Hierarchy is his more fundamental work that joins computer science and linguistics. It was published in IRE Transactions on Information Theory. Chomsky, Noam (1956). "Three models for the description of language" https://chomsky.info/wp-content/uploads/195609-.pdf

Type-3 grammar ≡ finite-state automaton

Type-2 grammar ≡ Non-deterministic pushdown automaton

Type-1 grammar ≡ Linear-bounded non-deterministic Turing machine

Type-0 grammar ≡ Turing machine

ps. Chomsky was already aware of Finite State Automata and Turing Machines and understood that they match Type-3 and Type-0. Pushdown Automata was invented later, and connection between Type-1 grammar and Linear Bounded Automata was made few years later.