AI agents trawling the web: famously incredibly low latency, sourcing news before it hits social media, and accurate enough to be able to stake multi million dollar trades on.
not quite: ai agents accessing the terminal which has the accurate data
you don't need to have large human teams reading the terminals anymore. the human headcount required to consume the bloomberg content is shrinking, not the headcount required to create it
I mentioned software, but didn’t said that I specifically focus on it.
Asml, arm, novo - neither of them are software companies. From what I’ve seen asml wouldn’t work without zeiss, another European company.
This still doesn’t invalidate my premise that software landscape is completely and totally dominated by us/Chinese companies, except probably gaming, where couple of hits can make a studio from any country a world class player, like CD Project Red
Banning third party AI assistants but maintaining access to your own on one of the biggest messaging platforms in Europe will indeed get this kind of response, not really a surprise.
Doubt the result will be “using WhatsApp without a pointless ai assistant crammed in” though sadly
I bet they will roll this out in the whole EU now, nobody will make an AI chatbot because it's too expensive, Meta AI will still be featured prominently in the home screen and the EU will pat themselves on the back that they did something against Meta.
Settings aside this is about CSAM, the US is the only one of the two to shut down a foreign social network because it dislikes what was said on it. The US doesn't get to play that card anymore.
What year do you think it is? The US is actively aggressive in multiple areas of the world. As a non US citizen I don’t think helping that effort at the expense of the rest of the world is good.
Yeah. That's all absurd. It's a big leap from that to the conclusion that the US military isn't a net good for the world. What post-modern world do you think you're living in in which militaries aren't needed for defense? And if they weren't around to defend you, you'd be better off? The veneer of civilization isn't as thick as you seem to think.
I mean that it's one thing to think it's bad to be defending the US. And it's another thing to think it's bad for the US to be defending the place you live.
I'd prefer we kicked out the usians and reformed back into people's defense forces.
I've spent some time in the military but didn't pursue it because they made a law where we could be ordered to participate in foreign missions, and at the time I knew people who had been to Afghanistan and helped out protecting US drug barons. They weren't feeling very good and got very little assistance with their psychiatric issues, like going to parties and drinking and crying a lot and sometimes tell stories about kids they'd murdered.
That sounds reasonable but is it realistic to believe that with military spending of 10% of your potential adversary (i.e., Russia) Sweden would be able to mount a credible defense on its own?
Why is Europe being outdone by authoritarian racists? Singapore started out as a little shithole in the corner of Malaysia, nothing particularly special to start from and a long ways from any rich country to trade with, maybe you can learn something from the racists.
1.) Someone complains about racism in Europe. In this regard Singapore is not an alternative.
2.) Sure European countries can learn something from Singapore or China. But definitely not on topics like racism and freedom of press.
3.) Was Singapore a shithole place giving its location? I doubt it because it started as a harbour where location matters. On the other hand Singapore government was quiet capable. So very interwined topic and longer discussion is needed.
Singapore executes transit travellers with personal amounts of drugs and men with long hair. Not my picture of freedom, no matter what their economy is doing.
A ban from the 60s refused entry to hippies, it fell out of use and was removed from the books early in the 1990s.
At no point in time were Led Zeppelin, the Bee Gees, Cliff Richard, Kitarō or other long haired men transiting Singapore during that period (1960-1990) executed.
Like the USofA, freedom in Singapore is f(wealth).
Legally, justice wise, it's still rooted in English common law from it's time as a colony prior to the British getting over run by Japanese on bicycles.
Even its class bigotry is rooted in colonial British attitudes.
It's wild watching people damn them for being authoritarian, yet by various polls 77% of Singapore want the death penalty for drug traffickers. This is high enough that i.e. in USA it would definitely be popular enough to pass an amendment to civil rights to guarantee execution even if the freedom from jeopardy to death penalty had been prior enshrined.
When "authoritarianism" used to secure economic freedom, "authoritarianism" bad. When authoritarianism used to stop the majority from executing drug traffickers, authoritarianism ... good?
Which polls? Political elections? Professional polls from experts? Or some random poll on the streets from some TV-Station or influencer? People also answer very different depending on the prospected outcome, thus the "seriousness" of their answer.
> This is high enough that i.e. in USA it would definitely be popular enough to pass an amendment to civil rights to guarantee execution even if the freedom from jeopardy to death penalty had been prior enshrined.
And legal system in Singapore works like USA? This seems like a strange claim.
>Which polls? Political elections? Professional polls from experts? Or some random poll on the streets from some TV-Station or influencer?
All the above. Political elections of people that are pro death penalty, professional polls commissioned by the MHA (and done continually in separate years), and also you can hear them from people on the streets if that's your preferred way.
>People also answer very different depending on the prospected outcome, thus the "seriousness" of their answer.
It's not simply a "prospected" outcome, the people in the polls literally are living in a country actively doing it and has been doing it for quite awhile. The information is out there to see what they're getting.
>And legal system in Singapore works like USA? This seems like a strange claim.
This is your fifth consecutive interrogative cross-examination question which is clearly aimed at presenting a counter-narrative without having to use the courage of making any assertions of your own, I only note here that your "question" implies a straw man that I've presented they work the same. But if you insist, the requirement of amending Singapore constitution is easily met in the context of the death penalty for drugs (2/3 MP + possibly 2/3 national referendum), were it that their civil rights were prior codified there to prohibit it.
Of course not. But show me a good system where 23% minority of the people can define civil rights in contradiction to the 77% and you will be better off, because that's the only way you can answer my prior question with inconsistencies presented.
Sure. It's any system where the 77% want something really bad, and the 23% don't. For example, a system where 77% of people want drug traffickers executed and 23% don't. That's a system where listening to the 23% is better than listening to the 77%.
A system like this cannot remain stable, and because it's unstable, it is not good.
I feel like this is an artifact from the late 2010s when the talk was of removing the port completely from phones, where that was being touted alongside swapping speakers with haptic screen audio as a way to make them completely waterproof.
As wireless charging never quite reached the level hoped – see AirPower – and Google/Apple seemingly bought and never did anything with a bunch of haptic audio startups, I figure that idea died....but they never cared enough to make sure the USB port remained top end.
I'd usually be against losing ports and user serviceable stuff but if the device could actually be properly sealed up (ie no speakers, mics, charge ports, etc) that would be legitimately useful.