parineum

I'm sure there's been a lot more effort put into the other, more consequential, portions of inference time.

The evidence for sunscreen killing coral is pretty thin and the evidence that so-called mineral sunscreen _not_ killing coral is non-existent.

Homeostasis is unnatural.

"They" bailed out big banks whose gambling resulted in millions of people losing their homes,

That gambling actually led to people getting those homes. The people losing them was the correction.

the electoral effect was basically zero.

because...

it was both the DNC and GOP that bailed out the banks

Can you explain the basis for your insistence that models matter?

It's not my insistence that they matter, it's my insistence that How many companies use which model isn't a measure of success. My insistence is that a better measure to determine _if_ models matter, is to ask which models successful companies use. It's not a perfect measure, as I mentioned, it would simply be a correlation but a causal link doesn't exist with out a corollary one.

Can you name another technology that determines success/failure rates?

I'm not sure what you're getting at with this question but of course. Electricity, machines, computers, etc.

Speaking of electricity and, as an example, you could run a similar thought experiment with companies who chose to use AC or DC power when that was a thing that needed to be chosen between. It turned out, there were niches where each made sense. So the actual question here is probably less about is open/closed better but rather which situations are better for which model. Obviously you can't fine tune a closed model so if you need to do that, your options are limited.

but one that will not likely affect the outcome of the business.

We don't know that, that's the point of my statement about changing the question.

Do successful companies opt for the US/Closed models? If they do or don't it's just a correlation but it means something. Maybe it's just causal of companies being able to get more funding because the ideas are better so they opt for the more expensive model (assuming it's better).

Deciding to use open models over closed models is a business decision.

Not op but that makes perfect sense to me.

"People with mostly bad ideas/execution use Chinese models." Is the point being made.

If you slice it to some measure of success, is the statement "Successful start-ups/companies use Chinese models." still true?

Software is solved so you just need to use AI to fix android auto or find a vulnerability in the head unit.

It's even more bizare now, mid 2026, when software is solved with AI.

Why doesn't op simply ask AI to write software to fix his problem?

In the Android world performance means longevity.

This is the assumption I'm challenging. What are people doing on their phones that makes a two year old phone feel two years old?

Maybe it's 3d gaming, I don't do any of that on my phone but for any productivity apps, I don't think I've noticed an effective difference in my phone for years.

anything with large amounts of user text input.

I always wonder what people who say things like this are doing with their phones.

Two generations of phones ago, these performance parameters were fine. What software has come out on Android phones since then that's made that performance level unacceptable?

there are lots of people and lots of use cases where a free, unlimited 5 TPS stream is worth more than paying a dollars per day to get access to a 500 TPS source.

That Xeon is going to be devouring power.

Your last sentence is non-sequitur.

The health implications of sugar consumption have no relationship to it being addictive (or not).

The parent was the same category of statements as, "I don't eat food that has chemicals." While they sprinkle it a chemical based, flavor enhancing, preservative.

Sugar is required for biology. I'm no more addicted to sugar than I am to water, air or just being alive.

People say "let doctors prescribe", but that ignores how in order for that to happen, a pharma company will need something they can patent, pay for the years of testing, get sole control over it for a period, and years later a generic can come about.

Is there not universies that could just do this research on the leaf itself?

It is hard for me to read the combination of these two bans as anything but active malice.

Reading the document...

In recent years, online forum users have begun to discuss recreational use of these four synthetic opioids and commonly compared these four synthetic opioids to other traditionally abused opioids, such as morphine and fentanyl (schedule II substances). However, unlike these two drugs that have FDA-approval for use in specific medical treatments, the four synthetic opioids have no currently approved medical use and, based on positive identifications of these four substances in forensic drug exhibits and toxicology samples, are likely to be trafficked and abused similarly to other synthetic opioids, such as brorphine (schedule I).

I've been benefitting from automation my entire life. I don't see why anything would change when that automation is driven by language models.

It's a good thing we're using that methane to power AI instead of releasing it into the atmosphere, right?

Sure but this whole thread reads like it's absolving the government giving these contracts and blaming private companies.

It's the frog and the scorpion fable.

And who is responsible for making sure federal contracts don't go to wasteful contractors?

are we that much better off as a society ... than ... the French in the 50s

Everyone in the western world is, including the French.

are we ... more cultured than, say, the French in the 50s

That's a pretty meaningless question to me.

Actually many forms of government mandate and authority are generated by marketplace mechanisms, many of which are actually more true to desirable marketplace dynamics than those we see in private marketplaces, due to concentration of power, which is a known failure mode of marketplaces in general.

Isn't government the highest concentration of power? They, typically, hold a monopoly on taking money with the threat of violence. Seems ripe for market failure.

Good thing they're just in control of a bunch of LLMs.

Well, you seem to be giving blanket support to the government and conflating it with democracy.

I thought a good example of the pinnacle of government bureaucracy in action acting undemocratically both undermines your position and, secondly, might have you alter your opinion a bit.

You've, essentially, just appealed to authority to justify your position.

There are plenty of solid reasons to despise Elon - no need for counterfactuals.

There really aren't that many. He's kinda a dick and briefly supported the president very publicly.

Most of the other reasons are just as fatuous as this.

That chat control vote in the EU sure was sometime, wasn't it?

Kessler syndrome isn't possible in the StarLink orbit.