Anything is an alternative to anything else if you think about it. Want a Chinese smartphone? Have you considered eating a delicious European made chocolate bar instead?
At least that's the vibe I'm getting from this site.
I guess both produce two-wheeled one-person mobility devices? There is some overlap in utility, but the audience doubting between a petro motorcycle and an electric scooter would be vanishingly thin, I think.
The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 could be considered the worst regulation of 21 century. It helped created behemoth corporations, where a single person can misallocate hundred of billon of dollars (Oh, hi Mark), they can buy out any competition.
Right now US economy is basically a centrally planned economy.
I've seen people use those three words to make a dig at zuckerberg before, but I never put 2 and 2 together and realized the quote until just now. I think the comma was essential, made my brain automatically read it correctly... Wiseau voice and all, lol.
More on-topic: I remain amazed by how the past quarter century of American legislation has included one overwhelming boon for corporations after another. Once corporations could give an infinitly higher amount of political contributions when compared to individual citizens, it became clear that the overall well-being and happiness of corporations was the only real political focus. Anything that doesnt directly or indirectly benefit a group of corporations is almost always designed to manipulate the electorate through invented/perceived/embiggened/non-cromulent "social issues".
There is no mechanism. Finance and startup Bros want to dump their overvalued companies with deceitful accounting on public investors to make a quick profit and socialize the inevitable losses. SOX makes it harder for them to do that.
To whatever extent SOX compliance makes it more complex to go public, it has no meaningful effect on legitimate successful companies - if you think going public will allow you to raise the most money, you'll go public; if ZIRP meant you could indefinitely raise private money, you'd stay private. Finance and startup bros want to blame companies staying private on SOX, but it has everything to do with either (1) the companies being deeply questionable from an accounting perspective, or (2) the companies being able to raise whatever investments they wanted in private without taking any of the costs of an IPO (e.g. the IPO pop, which could (simplisticaly) be thought of as money being made by the banks underwriting the IPO rather than by the existing owners/investors).
> The new investment in people is happening in Germany, Poland, Scandinavia
These are shitty job tbh. Friend of a friend worked on designing and testing windscreen wiper motors in Poland. Company did a round of layoffs and there are zero jobs in the country. There is one job in US - nobody will sponsor a visa. He doesn't know the language to work in Asia.
Does anyone know what are the proposed regulations? Controlling software is impossible, so the only option is banning hardware ownership. No more mac studio.
If you pay attention to how these US CEOs talk, it'll be "safety". If I were to guess, they'll try and require a lot of testing, validation, certification before a model is legally allowed to be used in the US or on US products.
It won't be a great moat, they'll probably try and get trade treaties setup to try and expand the moat. But ultimately it won't slow down chinese model development, just limit who can legally use them.
From the frontier labs, the only publicly stated one seemed to be to give them an exception from anti-trust laws to form a cartel and place - incidentally friendly - regulators in charge of monitoring everyone's work.
From politicians like Bernie Sanders, we've had proposals like 20 year imprisonment for anyone researching "ASI".
Recognising how useful a tool is at dealing with a problem should be applauded.
Some entities may consensually prefer to exist in bubbles of their choosing. Is it then considered ethically dubious to provide the structure they need to feel safe, without it requiring their awareness?
To me it seems like a problem of where to set limits and how boundaries are enforced.
reply