Crazy to think that people in some places in the world work for $2 per day. Jailbraking fable is economically equivalent to the labor of a thousand people.
Indeed, it’s also crazy to think that some people vaporize tin pellets in order to etch nanometer scale drawings on silicon crystals while others make mud pies. I think that disparity is even bigger.
That's a bit of a miss, I don't throw away much. Restaurants and supermarkets OTOH... I understand the attempt to make me feel bad though, it would make me think I'm complicit, and shouldn't say things like that.
You could take your analogy further, and consider why the Swiss banking isn’t so opaque anymore. Hint: people who did really inhuman things used that system to store their profits, and the Swiss society, developed and stable as it is, decided that they don’t want to bear the moral cost of it anymore.
But ultimately the Swiss decides what Switzerland does, and the population deciding they didn't want that, was the deciding factor. Been pressure on Switzerland about that for a long time, from many countries, and in fact still there is, as many still think they're not doing enough. Not everything in the world happens because of the US :)
You are naiive and/or stupid. And/or gaslighting. Most likely the latter since you have to sugarcoat your message with trailing emoji.
UBS tried to hold for as long as they could, and the choice the US given them is "pay a fine (accrues daily) or be cut from world financial system run by dollar".
UBS ultimately paid a 780 million fine. The rest of Swiss banks followed suit immediately.
Many things in the world happen, and most of the dumb bullshit that happens is imposed by US. This naiivete has to stop, the times have changed, and you, you spefically are part of the problem.
> Hint: people who did really inhuman things used that system to store their profits, and the Swiss society, developed and stable as it is, decided that they don’t want to bear the moral cost of it anymore.
That's a nice re-write of history.
What actually happened is that the US said: cut the crap and leave the opaque banking to us, else...
The Swiss didn't vet their clients. If Vladimir Putin wants to contract a data centre on your soil for the privacy, you can always have regulations that say, "No.".
The entire premise of "other countries can trust your companies to protect their privacy" is that you can't. "US reads Dutch emails" is the thing you have to not do.
You can be strict about who you do business with while still respecting their privacy once they are set up.
The respectable, politically popular country setting this up would simply say yes to the International Criminal Court, but no to Putin.
This doesn't work well as a blacklist of "everyone's allowed unless they turn out to be sanctioned", because some shell company or reseller could register and actually be a front for Russia or whatever other bogeyman. But just serving enormous respectable organisations is a big niche in itself.
But now you're proposing something that doesn't solve the problem for the vast majority of people, since nearly everyone is neither the International Criminal Court nor Vladimir Putin.
It might solve it for the majority of people by compute use, though. Charge $100,000 one time auditing fee to get approved for it. For a Fortune 500 company or EU government agency or a big NGO that's nothing.
One-time anything doesn't work for security, not least because if they're trying to betray you they can change whatever they want as soon as your auditors leave the premises.
Notice also that you're only handling the entities large enough to do things in-house to begin with. Meanwhile one of the biggest problems here is industrial espionage, which is to say startups with interesting new technology.
And in a Cost/Risk/Benefit computation, cars remain incommensurately invaluable. Because one's Quality of Life without them would simply be destroyed, comparatively. The moving "castle" (legal term in the USA) can be more important than the house in crucial regards.
The point attempted at post 48501189 remains unintelligible. That cars imply risks and externalities does not clarify it.
Cars were quite desirable in Soviet Union, where industry was not allowed to advertise. You had to get into a queue to buy a car, the state was not interested to make them in a quantity to satisfy the demand.
Very few people actually _needed_ cars as soviets built adequate public transport system. But there are many situations where car can really help a lot. Perhaps that's more obvious in a society which has rather few cars.
E.g. back in Soviet days and around that only one member of my extended family had a car. The rest of the family were really happy about opportunities it provides. E.g. with a car you can buy fresh produce directly from farmers with just few hours of driving. Doing the same without a car is so much hassle and effort people just won't do it, and then you're confined to what's available in a local grocery story (which was usually much worse than direct-from-farmer option). Do you think it has something to do with "car industry"?
No its much more straightforward, but I get it - there is no warm fuzzy feeling of discovering yet another global evil conspiracy out there set to get all of us.
We are family of 4 with 2 small kids. Whenever we travel, its a series of backpacks, other bags, other stuff, and then some more. Heck, even if I travel alone its almost never just me - there are heaps of garbage to dispose, big shopping bags to bring back, big backpack with camping or climbing or skiing gear etc.
It would have been absolute, utter nightmare to do this over public transport. This comes from European who has generally very good public transport (given rural area) and world's best train network specifically (Switzerland). Yet roads are choke full of cars and every year there is more.
Public transport simply ain't cutting it for anything but the simplest use cases, ie just me and nothing or small backpack. Some routes I take would take 3-5x longer with public transport, or are just not possible at all. No industry massage required here, ever. Not everybody lives in some dense city and never leaves outside for evenings or weekends.
Switzerland does have roads choked full of cars. It also has pretty mediocre bike infrastructure.
But this is kind of besides the point - even in the Netherlands I also would use a car if I were taking camping and skiing gear with the kids, and that's fine. But I can also take them in the bakfiets to the grocery store when I want, and that's also fine. Cars have their purpose, but you shouldn't _have_ to use one for basic trips.
Well, here is where we differ - what is basic trip for you may not be basic trip for me or next Joe. Maybe they don't even have walking path to their house. Maybe closest grocery store is 5km away on roads which are incompatible with safe cycling (many parents don't give a fck and just ride, throwing a tiny little dice with every truck passing centimeters from them and their young kids at high speed). Maybe XYZ.
Don't judge others in some complex situation just because in your case there is some simple straightforward solution. Yes Netherland has top notch cycling infra but thats nowhere else to be seen and won't be seen for quite some time. And don't force your solution unto everybody regardless on fit, that doesn't work long term (aka EU approach to things or why much of eastern part hates it).
Yes, people who live in the countryside need cars. But just because that's the case doesn't mean that the auto industry has nothing to do with the development of transit and cycling infrastructure in cities. I too am from Switzerland, but I lived near a train station (I now live in the US). When I'm there, I would much rather take the train than the car for most trips. It was an eight-minute walk to the station and the train is usually faster or the same duration as driving and I don't need to drive (which sucks; I'd rather read a book or look out the window than stare at the car in front of me). In the past, I owned an Urban arrow bakfiets which would fit my child and wife and me all at the same time with our groceries.
So yeah, you live in the countryside; you're in the minority, but you're trying to make global claims about the car industry based on your experience. For most humans, getting in the car involves bumper to bumper traffic to get somewhere, then 10-30 minutes of searching for a parking spot, and not having the infrastructure to make that a choice rather than a requirement in densely populated places is unacceptable.
And it's well documented in the US that the oil industry knee-capped public transit and train systems.
Yeah, when you travel. But wouldn't it be cool if school was just down the block and a grocery store was the same distance the other way? In big city Europe, it's like this.
Oh man what a perfect example to be had here. So historically exactly what you're said is 100% what happened. By the time Ford really mastered manufacturing, he managed to get the price of the Model T down to $260 around 1925, about $4,600 in current terms for a premium car!
Needless to say everybody was buying one and he was rocking it. Then came along General Motors and they were desperate to find any way to compete. They couldn't compete on price or quality, so their CEO is credited with inventing planned obsolescence, and turning cars into a fashion. They'd release a new style each year alongside plentiful marketing implying that the old styles were outdated, and it was wildly successful.
So yeah, needless to say people have always genuinely wanted their own cars. But it's also true that companies have managed through advertising to create artificial demand for vehicles that don't objectively make sense. To some degree reality is catching up at least though. Aston Martin is on the verge of bankruptcy and BYD is the largest electric car company in the world, by a wide margin.
Comfort, utility, fun, status. Every person has their own mixed requirement of those that then gets applied to their budget. Expensive for me is probably cheap for our CEO and cheap for me is probably expensive for our interns :)
Always hard to say for sure because I'm not sitting around running the exact same situations through both models in parallel to compare them.
It feels like you can give it a big chunky problem and leave it alone and it gets it done, with less questions and fewer design decisions that I wouldn't have made.
In reviewing its code I'm finding less to complain about than Opus. But it's all vibes, if you want a more scientific comparison you'll have to look elsewhere.
He has early access to anthropic models, of course he will hype them up, so that they will keep sharing access to preview models with him (and more traffic to his website). It also does't require him to perform any rigorous analysis of model performance, just share how it feels:
> But it's all vibes, if you want a more scientific comparison you'll have to look elsewhere.
I gave it a complete database migration of our app, opus failed hard each time... Untyped Json b for some rows, no proper normalisation, falling back asking me questions in between.
Fable just did it, clean code, one timeout with a hanging bash script, fixed a couple very old very structural bugs in the codebase
> I wonder what kind of horrors wait for us in the future.
When I want to feel dread in my soul, I imagine one day some grandma will feel nostalgic about TikTok and Trump AI memes and say ‘those were the good old days,’ compared to some unfathomable horror the culture industry will have released unto humanity.
I secretly wish LLMs take my job away because I'll get about two years of unprogrammed rest, which I absolutely will not take of my own accord. But it's unlikely to happen.
reply