yibg

Isn’t there a e) have investment at the federal level in R&D, specifically for industries that matter (economy, national security etc)? For automotive, China didn’t become the EV leader by accident. It was a deliberate national strategy, with funding to back it up. Yes there is cheaper labor, different regulations etc. But also in no small part to federal funding, investment in R&D etc. why are we surprised then that the US is in general falling behind?

The US could invest more in battery tech, manufacturing automation, robotics etc. This both lowers cost and increases product competitiveness.

In this case though it's a conflicting view. Let's say 40% of the province don't want to be separated, so they vote to rejoin canada (or form their own thing). Does the now independent Alberta allow it? If not, then why are they allowed to split from Canada? If they do, now this opens up the door for a infinite amount of splits.

We re-supply a single ISS. If all of this compute is in a single DC the solar panels and radiator fins will be the size of a small state.

LEO satellite orbits decay. e.g. starlink sats are ~5 year lifespan. But assuming a higher, more stable orbit, how do you replace them? There will be tens of thousands of these orbital DCs, so not really feasible to go to each one to replace some chips.

Or alternatively I guess a few massive ones, but those would need to be truly massive to accommodate the solar panels and radiator fins required.

The unit economics of orbital DC just doesn't work with today's technology. Assuming 0 ongoing OpEx(free energy), the launch cost of the satellite itself, along with solar panels, radiators as well as the chip themselves just doesn't make sense given the ~5 year operational lifespan of both the chips and the satellites.

These numbers would be ridiculous even for a software play. < 20B in revenue at almost 2T valuation? That's almost 100x revenue multiples at a not so great revenue growth rate.

My moral framework can be different from yours. Me the individual can come to the conclusion that something is immoral when the rest of the group doesn’t agree with me. And (at least for my own moral framework) I should take action accordingly.

So I don’t need a shared framework to make the claim that something is immoral (to me).

Of course it can. Terms of service and contractual obligation (should) apply to governments as well. Google is perfectly capable of outlining what's acceptable use and what's not, and the government is free to accept or reject and not use the product. Google is choosing not to set the boundaries.

We also used to point to Russia and China as places we don't want to copy.

You don't need a shared moral framework to come to a personal moral conclusion.

Probably difference in the boundary of what programming entails too. Eg is coming up with the algo itself part of programming or only the writing the implementation part after the algo is clear.

The first is hard, the second much less so.

Scary but also entirely predictable and expected.

- High wealth inequality

- Perceived inability (or reduced ability) to get ahead and have your voice heard

- Government seen as more corrupt and benefiting the elite. Different set of rules for them vs for everyone else

- Highly polarized population at odds with each other

We can still decide if a thing is just even if no justice will be enforced.

Group A also include starting a war for bad reasons and then "accidentally" killing school children as a result.

Netflix is more resilient to economic downturns than you'd think. For many people it's a higher ROI for entertainment when compared to a lot of other alternatives. e.g going to bars / restaurants / movie theaters.

Not familiar with the subject so genuine question. HOW would antimatter be used as fuel? There is energy released in matter antimatter annihilation, but where would the force to move a spacecraft come from?

Not directly related to the article itself, but aren't all debt by definition tomorrow's debt? i.e. debt is money to be paid off in the future.

There are 2 separate topics that seem to get bundled together a lot.

1. Should we deport illegal immigrants? While there are some debate here (sanctuary cities, immigration reform etc), it's not the primary cause of the current ICE repulsion.

2. How deportations are done currently. Mass round ups, targeting everyone, including those with no criminal record, the violence involved. This is what most people are against.

Ironically in my experience anyways, this is true more so in parts that are more strongly "Canada should be the 51st state" politically. e.g. the south, where I find day to day interactions with people there are much more friendly than say California.

The right response is to not use the said product and use something else. If i want your widget to do something I want and you refuse, I don't get to smash your shop.

If the president can come to your house and burn it down, do we just throw up our hands and say, well he holds all the cards, oh well. Or do we call that out as being a bad thing?

Israel just (quite proudly) said they had been planning the targets for months.

Both can be true. Just because you've created a revolutionary product doesn't mean it's a viable business, let alone one worth $700+ billion. There is a lot of history of the first movers that created revolutionary products that eventually faded away into nothing, while others capitalized on the innovation.

Trusting your own eyes over what someone else says is brainwashed? What kind of ass backwards assessment is this?

Taxes aren't just there to provide an income stream to the government. It's also a mechanism to guide behavior via incentives (or punishment). Right or wrong there we're providing an incentive to hold assets longer, or use less fuel or buy from domestic producers etc.

In both cases though, mostly rich people.

Even that isn't what's happened here. If we continue the analogy it's more like stop paying for wifi, then later discover you need it for work so sign up again at and pay an extra fee.

There is so much conflation (maybe intentional, I dunno) between the goal of cutting spending and the method that DOGE employed. If DOGE went in methodically and actually cut waste and fraud I'd cheer them. What actually happened was a mixture of:

- Cutting things without knowing the details and then later having bring them back at extra cost (e.g. employees)

- Cutting things regardless of consequence based on ideological views (or just randomly?)

- Not actually saving anything and just lying about it

dunning-kruger effect at the corporate level?

How about just general privacy? I mean do you really want someone / the government to be able to track everywhere you go?

- Going to your girlfriends place while the wife is at work

- Visiting a naughty shop

- Going into various companies for interviews while employed

With mass surveillance there is the risk of mass data leak. Would you be comfortable with a camera following you around at all times when you're in public? I wouldn't be.

South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore all had significantly lower crime rates before CCTVs were all over the public space.

EDIT: also, most crime happens at home, so if you really want a large reduction put cameras in everyone's home too.