qwytw

Arguably they should have just gone with Android,

It's not obvious Nokia could have realistically competed with the East Asian phone manufacturers for more than a few years. It was/is a very low margin market with very cutthroat competition.

Well it might be reasonably easy to get your non-GAAP earnings positive if you fiddle with the numbers enough.

It's not like it's realistically possible they are directly losing money on their API inference (subscriptions are maybe less clear but I think it wouldn't be far fetched to think that depending on real usage if they are at least break even).

So they either need to significantly increase usage or actually hike prices. But the second option exposes them to the risk of by undercut by open models which are priced only slightly above marginal cost.

At some point a lot of users might start thinking that Deepseek/GLM at 10th the price or less (based on Operouter pricing, using Deepseek itself for inference is of course not an option for a lot of companies) which just good enough for most use cases.

Will it be? It's so obscenely slow and expensive and its not obvious it could provide a lot of value for non highly specialized tasks.

Well it would be a lot easier if those companies wanted to build them in uninhabited areas in the middle of nowhere with no infrastructure. Somehow they don't want to do that...

Technically they couldn't be added to the S&P 500 etc. until they become profitable.

Based on current rules they wouldn't included in the S&P 500 for at least several years even based on optimistic scenarios.

Of course IIRC they looking into tweaking the rules to allow some handpicked extremely unprofitable companies in, due to "reasons"....

How is is sustainable for Apple to maintain MacOS for free? I see not problem with monetizing Mac users by making them pay extra for OS and especially its upgrades.

Maybe just a lottery instead? Would be approximately as useful just way simpler.

Also don't all of the "enterprise" certificates already provide all that, anyway?

Hopefully even if the worst comes to pass and the EU ends up enacting this law there are still the courts on the EU level and then the national governments and courts in countries where this type of surveillance is illegal can still decide to do whatever the want (i.e. national constitutions general take precedence over EU treaty obligations)

You kind of can, but you get to only vote for the full package i.e. the party which wins the national elections will get to appoint its own commissioner. Most people obviously only care about the domestic issues and likely will not change their vote regardless of what the appointed commissioner thinks or does.

The Fed has a pretty strict and narrow mandate and an even narrower toolset. They can't start coming up and imposing random laws and regulations (outside the banking sector) just because they want to...

Generally a lot of people do vote for the PM i.e. chose the party to vote for based on it's leader(s)

toward passing active legislation that protects these rights going forward?

That's not something the "legislators" in the EU parliament can do. It's effectively a consultative body which can either approve or send back the legislation provided to them so the council and commision can find sufficient workarounds...

What would actually help is if a government of a country where this type of Stasi/KGB style surveillance is constitutionally illegal like Germany to speak out and tell the EU (and Denmark which keeps pushing this) that they can go fuck themselves and that they will prosecute any company which is trying to comply with these regulations. (which would be perfectly legal since constitution/basic laws still supersede any type of EU treaty obligations in most countries.

Some snippets from Kimi's 2.5 answer:

"" [...] Since you need to get your car washed, you have to bring the car to the car wash—walking there without the vehicle won't accomplish your goal [...] If it's a self-service wash, you could theoretically push the car 50 meters if it's safe and flat (unusual, but possible) [..] Consider whether you really need that specific car wash, or if a mobile detailing service might come to you [...] """

Which seems slightly (unintentionally) funny.

But to be fair all the Gemini (including flash) and GPT models I tried did understand the quesiton.

Having less of that garbage fiat short-termism

Yet having more of endless boom and bust cycles with major economic depressions lasting for years (outcomes of the gold standard was a good idea).

You're forcing business to produce something valuable in real terms instead of nominal terms

I don't quite understand what does that mean. Pricing goods in oil or grain? (coincidentally either of which would function better as a currency than bitcoin).

Germany did relatively fine though? Despite the German mark being the second largest reserve currency and their economy being heavily reliant on exports.

Well there is a difference between people not buying anything at all and being significantly less than they are now. Consumer goods and services is only the tip of the iceberg.

How much do you think debt would cost and how easy would it be for businesses to get credit?

Combining a deflationary currency with a growing (or at least non static) economy is bad a everyone who has a basic understanding of history prior to the 1930s can see that. Something like bitcoin would be even much worse than the gold standard.

Today there are more options like the Euro that didn’t exist in the 90s

Yet the Euro peaked back in 2009 and has been declining ever since.

At this point its share is not that massively higher than that of the German mark back in the 90s.

Regardless of anything else equating Maduro's Venezuela and Ukraine and the military side-effects of both invasions/"operations" isn't exactly fair. The Venezuelan government is/was both illegitimate and very oppressive. Not that I'm implying that Trump did what he did on Humanitarian grounds...

It's unclear if most if not all of those things you were actually crimes legally (regardless of how morally and ethically reprehensive they might have been). Regardless there was an established precedent for what Obama was doing. Not so much for the crimes Trump was being accused..

He did prosecute his political opponents like Bolton though for doing exactly what Trump did just on a likely several magnitudes smaller scale...

The natural equilibrium would get reached

Except somehow they managed to get it right from the beginning and there was never any real market pressure to change it. Had Valve (or Apple of that matter) decided to charge e.g. 20% due to whatever reasons or conditions that existed in 2007 (but might not anymore) that would still somehow be the "natural equilibrium" even today in the exactly the same way.

The fee is also very sticky, platforms can't really increase without a massive amount if backlash, therefore reducing it becomes much riskier since they can never go back. Given a competitive market doesn't really exist a variable fee based on "market conditions" can't really be a thing either.

It's very hard for someone to undercut Valve just because of the scale. They might sill be very profitable if they charged 15-20% while other smaller stores might not be able to afford that. Same mechanics have always applied to most other monopolies or oligopolies in other industries.

Of course compared to retail its a great deal but that's because of the huge number of middlemen involved in shipping a game/software back then. It's not like retailer margins were that great.

The 30% is mostly arbitrary though, IMHO had apple decided to charge 20% or 25% when the appstore came out that would have become the industry standard.

That's not exactly how markets generally work ("free market" is more of a theoretical concept than something that has ever existed outside of commodity markets at least).

In a way it can be justified in the sense that developers would rather get 70% than not make a sale at all if their games were only available on less popular platforms. But effectively that's what allows Steam to charge charge as much. They certainly have a dominant position in the market due to very little competition.

It's like retail/supermarket chains in certain countries being able to extort better conditions from their suppliers because they have very little choice. Or e.g. real estate agents being able to charge disproportionally high fees due to how the market is structured.

Whether someone considers that fair or not is of course rather subjective...

Steam doesn't have this issue at all.

IMHO it's a matter of degree but fundamentally the same thing. The barriers to switching to a different store are just much lower than not having an Apple/Google phone but they still exist.

Yes, but if it's actually competitive that won't last that long. Mistral will do the same as google (cut their free tier by 50x or so) if they ever catch up. Financially anything else would make no sense.

Of course currently Mistral has an insane free tier, 1 billion tokens for each(?) of their models per month.

Mistral’s models are pretty good, right

Are they? IIRC their best model is still worse than the gpt-oss-120B?

Didn't Nextstep support x86 long before MacOS X was a thing? I assumed that they always had it compilable on x86 long before the switch (since Rhapsody supported it). I guess the user space stuff might have been trickier but probably not the kernel itself and surrounding components.

So many open source projects have risen out of real and concrete needs and successfully made their way into our every day lives.

When it comes to consumer hardware or software targeted at end users? I think such cases are pretty rare and far in between. Firefox had a brief stint of being popular in the late 2000s, Valve is doing some cool stuff with SteamOS/Proton but I can't think of much else of the the top of my head.

Otherwise it's usually companies like Google or Apple which use OSS as a base layer for their closed down and proprietary platforms.

PostmarketOS is cool but its a product niche targeted a very tiny subset of consumers (just like Linux on desktop for that matter).

To apply the law to political figures can never be done in a clean or unambiguous way

Well yes. That's certainly the case when the system is deeply corrupt and only superficially democratic. They shouldn't be above the law nor their opponents should have the power to abuse it.