We see the fundamental forces of capitalism at work: To justify valuation, Google needs to grow. When they feel a ceiling, they broaden their search to anything legal that makes customers pay - even if it contradicts their longterm interests. This created countless attack angles for startups. The good news: we already have a solution! Monopoly laws. In case of the internet, no company should be able to have this much power.

The bad news: US decided to weaponize big tech’s leverage over the world and does not enforce these laws anymore that fix vanilla capitalism.

>We see the fundamental forces of capitalism at work: To justify valuation, Google needs to grow.

You’re confusing markets with capitalism.

Market Socialism (the only reasonable kind) would have these same issues. If Google was owned by the workers instead of capitalists, it would still have incentive to grow. The worker owners would have the exact same incentives as current owners. The only difference would be who the owners are.

Capitalism is not actually “the final boss” that internet leftists make it out to be. Socialism is not the panacea that leftists make it out to be. Surveillance is not a “capitalist only” thing.

I agree, thanks for clarification. I did not want to argue in favor of Socialism - my criticism here is that „free market correction instruments“ like antitrust, monopoly etc are absent.

It would be great to have a few screenshots on the readme.md or Doc pages to understand quickly what we‘re talking about.

Should be in the README.md

They kinda assume everyone knows it. Maybe the same thought process led to commercialization…

There is a Link in the About Section AND a Link in the readme.md

Maybe it's just because I'm more of a SwiftUI person, but in the example on the homepage, the event == 'Cancel' condition seems like a strange and fragile way to check if a certain button was pressed...

The difference to a deadlock is that a deadlock is a inability to move, the zugzwang is an obligation to move.

An obligation to move to your disadvantage.

The disadvantage is the fact that you're obligated to move. The outcome of the move is not determined though.

“Any legal move will worsen their position”, so the outcome of your move is determined to be inherently negative.

More accurately, it’s being forced to move a specific piece despite disadvantages, because not moving it would result in an even worse outcome — as opposed to moving a different piece that you’d otherwise prefer to move. So it means being forced to move that first piece instead of not moving it (instead of moving a different piece).

And that’s the generalized meaning in German, being forced to act with respect to a specific thing, where you’d normally prefer to keep it in its current state.

The word has it's use outside the chess world though and there it is as I wrote it.

What happens if you don't move in chess? Honest question.

You run out of time on your clock. If you press your clock without moving, the opponent will alert the referee to sort you out. And if you play without a clock, your opponent will get annoyed at you taking forever to move.

Hahah! Like Bitcoin: equal distribution of wealth - except for us that joined early, we get most of course.

I love it. Ofc it‘s unclear if and how this can be enforced, but we MUST find a proper solution to this problem. It also extends to images and videos. ML should not become an escape hatch for copyright evasion. We invented copyright for a reason - without it, our capitalistic system is flawed and unfair. Not in a sense that it‘s not „nice“: each system has its stress limits, and if we bias the odds continuously in favor of few, we risk instability.

Of course it can be enforced. If you're not compliant with the terms of a license you don't have a license and are a pirate. If the license is nonsensical then no one can run the software.

No, there is no reason to believe it can be enforced.

In the US, training is considered fair use at this time, and thus DOES NOT require a license at all. That might change, but I doubt it.

Part of the story why we can‘t feel the hypothetical productivity gains of the last century is that certain goods became 1. more expensive and 2. last shorter. This movement (as mentioned in the tractor example) might be the result of people realizing this: what drives GDP (expensive throw away crap) might not always drive wealth.

Incomplete blog post! Where was the comparison vs. a 1x1 pixel font?

This AI fatigue is called genflation.

„Claude, merge these branches and resolve conflicts. Ask me if unclear.“

16M$ VC money saved.

So far I have not let AI work with git, because I preferred handling version control myself.

Does it work well for resolving merge conflicts in your experience?

In my experience, yes. It has done a great job of choosing which changes should be integrated based on context in the repo, too.

Not the person you responded too, but in my experience the answer is a big yes.

I'm sure that will go well for my formal model in a language that about 100 people use...

If only 100 people in the world are using this language, who are you even merging code with, lol.

Some of the other people?

Exactly. It sounds like a detail that you can‘t eat and drink while you‘re in VR - but for casual experience it‘s friction and you resort back to a screen.