Yes I think government issued credentials like Estonia does is very neat, and preferable to what we have in USA when you need to verify your identify to interact with online gov services, the id.me, which is taking a video and uploading it to some third party to say 'yep that's the person definitely using their laptop right now', as if gen-AI hasn't already made that obsolete.

Besides that we have the technology for services to ask 'yes/no' questions of a secure enclave without revealing the personal data, like 'is this person's birthdate after May 29 2005', instead of letting every liquor store and gas station scan the barcode of your government ID including your home address

Sometimes it makes me feel crazy what we collectively have settled on.

the weird sexual imagery makes it fun and memorable

Your right, scraping is legally protected. It's reproducing verbatim text that's a violation, which is why LLMs still clumsily refuse to produce song lyrics. They are capable of copyright violations and have to be 'aligned' not to get their providers sued.

Verbatim reproduction is neither necessary nor sufficient to create a copyright violation.

"Copyright violation" is what we call the set of things that destroy the incentive for people to create original work by unduly benefitting from someone else's original work.

Kiwix and Protocol Labs have a mirror hosted on IPFS: https://ipfs.kiwix.org/

There's Internet In a Box and various other offline self hosted interfaces.

But of course there's a big difference between a mirror of the content and the whole community which updates and creates the content.

I’m downvoting because this is basically bait without any contribution as to why you feel that way, but personally I vibe coded a very successful result by iterating a rails app and then crawling the entire site into static files (~144,000 product pages and category pages) and then stashing them all in a bucket on cloudflare free tier.

I never wrote ruby before so I could only sanity check the results and approach of what it was doing, but thanks to the automated data migrations it was very easy for me to change my mind about how I wanted data to be structured, rollback if it didn’t work etc. it is a language designed for rapid iteration.

> up and down cycles have bankrupted the vast majority of players in the past

Exactly, so what’s the incentive for anyone to sink half a billy into building out more capacity.

The existing players get to rest on their laurels and succeed whether or not the AI bubble busts.

The incentive is that your 2 competitors will build more than you and gain market share on you if you are too conservative.

Samsung, SK Hynix, and Micron all have to balance between capex spending, making as much profit as possible, and risk of bankruptcy.

So are the new competitors currently in progress of starting up? Because it takes at least several years.

Only Chinese companies have a chance. Problem is that China can’t buy EUV machines and the most advanced memory chips now use EUV.

Heck, the US is now pressuring ASML to not sell even DUV machines to China, period.

Yeqh that is a challenge. DDR5 and LPDDR5X are both manufacturable with DUV. So let's hope they still get access to that...

When costs are high enough, you can recoup that, if you have an appetite for risking the downturn.

I guess it depends on what you value more highly, a machine from a company that respects intellectual property, or a machine that reliably prints parts without intervention.

Prusa work well. They're just expensive.

Plenty of printers that do both.

This was true a couple years ago, but the other vendors have caught up. Today you have options that reliably print without intervention and aren’t bambus

Prusas are plenty reliable without intervention

You’re making it personal which is against site guidelines, chill.

It’s just an example that there exists a “they” that were making these claims.

There's some "they" or another that makes all sorts of claims, including obviously stupid or self-serving ones; and with no requirement that different "they" s be consistent about what claims they make.

The rhetorical device "Remember when they told us that ____" is meant to imply that there was some legitimate, trustworthy authority that made a claim about the world that people should have been willing to trust, that turned out not to be true. And what I'm disputing is that the specific authorities - prestige English-language news and opinion organizations like The Atlantic - should ever have been particularly trustworthy, or even authoritative. The Atlantic writing an article in 2010 arguing that social media is bringing democracy to Iran by facilitating the Green Revolution should not even at the time have been considered to be a trustworthy, authoritative voice that people should put much creedence in. Indeed the actual text of that article is someone challenging the claims that (Western) social media were particularly important to what was happening at the time, presumably in response to other, more pro-social-media voices also speaking at the time.

My point is not necessarily to litigate what specific people writing for specific publications about then-current geopolitical events, and how good their analysis was in hindsight; it's to argue that any analysis of this sort is simply not a promise that anyone should feel betrayed about not being consistent with real events years later.

*so long as an accurate answer exists on the internet

Claude is OK at saying when it can’t find good information, but it’s still 50/50 on citing a source that has nothing to do with its claim.