Hearing that something is solvable is already a hint. I don’t think leveraging this knowledge is ethical. They could go after a different problem but didn’t.

The times when people spent an extra brain cycle to avoid billions of second passes.

I don’t know, a stab carries lots of bias in interpretation. We might be reflecting our conscious experience markers on a different conscious experience. And selectively so, e.g. lobsters welfare. From my perspective, this is the hypocrisy of these welfare statements. We are already happy to kill beings we consider conscious to feed ourselves but suddenly sensitive with a consciousness we don’t know if it’s there. I would wager this is more out of fear of the idea of this consciousness rather than out of welfare.

I happen to agree with you. Many others tie moral consideration to assumed subjective experience. They espoused this even though they obviously rarely adhere to it and that has self image considerations. I bet the lack of answers about others’ subjective experience has more salience to them. This may cloud judgment and lead to accept overconfident answers.

In Greek they are still atrociously bad, still feels like they translate an English thought. Nevertheless, the etymological insights they can give on words or Ancient Greek passages is making reading the ancients really fun.

How to not learn from your mistakes and actually make them worse. I wonder how many valuable alliances they lost just because of that fear. Whoever was willing to sign was already probably not going to be a threat.

To be fair, source code escrow was for a long time a standard feature of contracts between small/medium software companies and large enterprises.

It's actually one of the reasons that open source took off in the early 2000s - if the source was already available all you needed to do was come up with a legal agreement that says something to the effect of "EnterpriseCo has a limited license to use SmallCo's software which reverts to full rights in the event that SmallCo is unable to carry out its obligations", with no need to bother arranging (and paying for) escrow.

That made it easier and cheaper to deal with open source companies, and made escrow seem weird and expensive by comparison. But in the 90s it was almost universal in those sort of contracts.

I don’t think collapse is by itself a good predictor of change. People in collapse just bow easier. Change of this scale unfortunately comes from terminal and collective despair. Let’s not rule out either normal change, not every marginal action needs to make things worse. The system might have enough variation still to turn around. In short, despair or its anticipation are not optimal strategies.

I don’t think it’s because of the pelican but rather because of the bike. Edit:fixed autocorrect typo

An incrementally built response seems self referential to me.

The solution for me is not to be more common. The solution is to create a very unique profile each and every time.

There should be a browser that lies to websites instead of caving

For any critical workload a chip is considered trash after 5-7 years. They still run , of course, but increased incidents on platforms that are supposed to be 99.99 are hard to work with. Now if you mean there’s unused stock of those , that would maybe work, but I am not aware of significant unused stocks.

I am talking about making new chips on older nodes. If China can only build 7nm, but TSMC is at 3nm, that’s unfortunate, but they will survive.

I agree, a move on Taiwan sets semiconductor industry back like 5 years at this point, down from what I’d say was 10 just last year

yeah equity asset values are going to tank but US will get serious about the supply chain immediately (which is already very much in progress), plus all the older nodes to alleviate some pressure off of the active compute demands