Didn't they famously have a search deal with Google (that they were also ultimately fined for - in the EU at least)? So there's definitely precedent with Google as a "partner".
It could be a trust-building move, open up a little and see if it's reciprocated, although if it's a trust-building move the right response is probably not to threaten to obliterate them, or to launch more military strikes.
Although this conflict has seen both sides consistently choose the wrong response in basically every situation, which is why it's still going on.
Yeah, it's not even clear what the true motivation is from the US side.. "get the Uranium out" by itself doesn't make sense, because (a) they can just enrich again (or even be supplied directly by Russia/NK) and (b) even if they build nukes they'll never be able to reach US territory. If they wanted to destabilize the regime, they would have needed to actively push an alternative group or leader. If they wanted to pressure China/EU by stressing global markets, I'd say it was mildly successful - though incredibly short term.. I suppose it may be a mix of all of those (and maybe more). But I'm lost as to what the overall goal and strategy is here, it feels extremely haphazard.
Everyone is lost about what exactly was the US strategy here. Everybody understands Iran wasn't a threat to the US that warranted immediate action. Mostly everyone understands the aftermath of this war looks to be worse than the previous situation.
> Everyone is lost about what exactly was the US strategy here.
The strategy is clear: out Iran as a paper tiger (accomplished last year), disarm the mullahs by sinking their boats and destroying the few aircrafts they had left, and humiliate the regime so that an uprising becomes more likely. Same strategy that has already realigned Syria and Venezuela with U.S. interests, and that will soon take Cuba too.
I don't think that anything should be negotiated at this stage. Return to combat operations, destroy Iran's ability to threaten traffic through the Strait, escort the ships that are currently trapped in the Gulf, and maintain the blockade on Iranian ports.
You must be the only person in the world who thinks the "strategy is clear". Not even other Republicans agree with you.
Your claims are not what Trump said. He has claimed it was about regime change, then about an uprising, then about the nuclear program (though it was apparently destroyed forever during the previous war, it must have magically rebuilt itself), then about opening the strait (which was open before the war), then about blockading it, then about who knows what. The man can't keep his story straight and keeps flip-flopping about this. Meanwhile, there are real hints it's Israel leading the US into wars it doesn't want but there's no backing down now.
Just the fact the US wasn't able to foresee the closure of the Hormuz Strait, or at least effectively handle it without turning it into a major crisis, is evidence enough there was no strategy.
The US can very well destroy Iran, at great cost, and this isn't in doubt. But so far there's one country completely humiliated by this war, and it's not Iran.
> Same strategy that has already realigned Syria and Venezuela with U.S. interests, and that will soon take Cuba too.
Syria is more or less a failed country and the strategy was different anyway (and the world still doesn't completely understand the fallout from that collapse). Venezuela's regime didn't fall (they were humiliated into cooperation with the US while keeping their political structure intact; that war has a similarity with the current one in that Trump couldn't make up his mind, was it about freedom and democracy, about drugs, or about oil? Or maybe about getting a Nobel Peace Prize?). Cuba is a completely different case which has nothing to do with Iran (or do you think Cuba is months away from having nukes?).
Does it matter? The ultimate way to measure productivity is $$$.. companies that generate more $$$ with the same number of "people" are more "productive". Drilling that number down to orgs/teams/ICs is a political endeavor, which means how you do that depends on the result you're looking to generate.
True, but the relationship is certainly not linear and not a Markov process. Also, the $$$ a company makes are rarely directly translated to incentives for developers. I remember a case where a company was doing an OK engineering/product job, but had problems with sales. Then a new sales driven CEO came into place and for the next 3-5 years the company had great financial results, while at the same time eroding the engineering culture (who cares if money is flowing anyway). Then that guy left and the next CEOs had to take care of the mess.
Even if the ultimate measure is dollars most employers will attempt to predict which metrics of employment best correllate with dollars so they can predict how many people to hire
For a solo dev sure.. but isn't there a huge privacy difference between Anthropic and DeepSeek APIs as well? I assumed part of the cost for Anthropic was essentially a privacy premium.. (plus they offer B2B).
That was my impression as well. You have to babysit the AI the whole time and if you fail to do that it's basically your life (and others' of course) on the line.
Run on premade, static tracks with clearly divided "roads" from the rest of road participants.
Their role is to stop the train in an emergency and adjust to speed etc. to track/driving conditions.
Automating their job probably wouldn't even need the complex ML used for self-driving because the context is significantly simpler and relatively well defined. Maybe a team in city might need such a model but it would still be a significantly simpler task than driving a car.
Trains are really unpredictable. Even in the middle of a forest two rails can appear out of nowhere, and a 1.5-mile fully loaded coal drag, heading east out of the low-sulfur mines of the PRB, will be right on your ass the next moment.
I was doing laundry in my basement, and I tripped over a metal bar that wasn't there the moment before. I looked down: "Rail? WTF?" and then I saw concrete sleepers underneath and heard the rumbling. Deafening railroad horn. I dumped my wife's pants, unfolded, and dove behind the water heater. It was a double-stacked Z train, headed east towards the fast single track of the BNSF Emporia Sub (Flint Hills). Majestic as hell: 75 mph, 6 units, distributed power: 4 ES44DC's pulling, and 2 Dash-9's pushing, all in run 8. Whole house smelled like diesel for a couple of hours!
Fact is, there is no way to discern which path a train will take, so you really have to be watchful. If only there were some way of knowing the routes trains travel; maybe some sort of marks on the ground, like twin iron bars running along the paths trains take. You could look for trains when you encounter the iron bars on the ground, and avoid these sorts of collisions. But such a measure would be extremely expensive. And how would one enforce a rule keeping the trains on those paths?
A big hole in homeland security is railway engineer screening and hijacking prevention. There is nothing to stop a rogue engineer, or an ISIS terrorist, from driving a train into the Pentagon, the White House or the Statue of Liberty, and our government has done fuck-all to prevent it.
- AT&T “unlimited” mobile plans
- Purdue Pharma's OxyContin push
- Juul marketing vaping products as a "safer alternative" to smoking
- Facebook's sale of user data to Cambridge Analytica
- Wells Fargo opening fake accounts for people
- ...
How many Sacklers are in jail for what they did to people? None. Purdue pleaded guilty, but no Sackler family member went to jail. The settlement totals about $7.4 billion, with roughly $6.5–$7 billion coming from the Sacklers and about $900 million from Purdue. Earlier estimates put the family's wealth around $11 billion, so they remain enormously wealthy. Hundreds of thousands have died in the opioid crisis, ruined families got no real justice, and no Sackler went to prison... great punishment.
Perhaps none of them personally engaged in conduct that merits a prison sentence? Which of the Sacklers do you believe should have been charged, and for what conduct?
> Earlier estimates put the family's wealth around $11 billion, so they remain enormously wealthy
Why wouldn't they? The company had been around for a hundred years
Now I understand your point. I narrowed my thinking process to the music industry. You're right that companies usually never "go to jail" just "kindly" pay the fee eventually. I remember there's movie "Corporation" which tries to prove that if company is a person (legal person), this person has a personality disorder
> rightfully convicted of what is indisputably criminal behaviour
Consider the opposite view: if pretending to be a human is "criminal behavior" there are about 8 billion criminals walking around on this planet.. and in this case our current legal system appears to be hijacked for the protection of utterly nonsensical, hopelessly broken, ancient business models from a rent-seeking, anti-consumer, creator-exploiting, trillion-dollar corporate mafia, which would like nothing better than to track, spy, and force-feed their audience at every turn.
That's basically what I heard ten years ago from individuals (and even universities) for why they switched to Mint.. but even now, if you ask Perplexity for a "debian-based distro thats not ubuntu" Mint is the second option.
I did a bunch of distro hopping in the 90's but locked onto Debian (mainly testing, now largely unstable) not long after. I'm still just not sure what compels people elsewhere. Especially now: the Debian installer was vicious if you were a newbie, but I hear it's pretty ok now.
This is largely a me problem! I don't understand what the value add is of other offerings. It's unclear what else would be good or why. Debian feels like it really has what's needed now. Things work. Hardware support is good. Especially in the systemd era, so much of what used to make distros unique is just no longer a factor; there's common means for most Linux 's operation. My gut tells me we are forking and flavoring for not much at all. Aside from learning some new commands, learning Arch has been such a recent non-event for me. It feels like we are having weird popularity contests over nothing. And that amplifies my sense of: why not just use Debian?
But I also have two and a half plus decades of Linux, and my inability to differentiate and assess from beginner's eyes is absolutely key to this all. I try to ask folks, but it's still all so unclear what real motivations, and more, what real differences there are.
The real differences are things that maintainers do. Like how... OBS I think? ...had a bunch of people come in with issues that only existed in the Debian version. Debian software has a bunch of patches, Arch software has far fewer and sticks closer to upstream, other distros will vary. Derivatives also made nonfree easier to set up, which was especially important when MP3 was still encumbered. Nowadays Debian still has the reputation of having old, outdated versions of software, which is going to be hard to shake, especially considering stability is meant to be their main draw.
> To get the remaining 15%, which they are contractually obligated to acquire, they must purchase from the founder. As they are in violation of their contract if they fail to acquire the remaining 15%, the founder now has complete control to dictate any price they want.
I can't imagine "any price they want" is quite right here. At the very least, shouldn't we expect underwriters and other stakeholders (in this case Nasdaq, Inc.) to negotiate option-contracts as part of the IPO deal to cover their future obligations?
Yes, it might be a "worse" deal than those initial 5% - though we don't even know that - but then institutional investors time horizons are typically much longer than 6 months. Unless you think SpaceX goes straight down to 0, it seems like a risky but calculated, long-term investment.
I agree they could be more transparent about it, but maybe they will send out a notice in the prospectus update?
Index funds and ETFs also have strict replication rules limiting the amount of non-physical replication in their legally binding prospectus...
The more physical a tracker is, the lower the tracking error, but also the more fees you have to pay. "Good" ETFs/IFs are often 98% physical. This makes for higher fees, but more safety for subscribers in case of large swings.
So it's not like they are _free_ to replicate however they see fit, the replication mechanism is part of the product.
It means holding the actual stocks in the underlying index, as opposed to synthetic replication, which aims to achieve returns matching the index via derivatives or other techniques.
It's physical in the sense that literal means not literal nowadays.
ETF and index arb traders use the term physical to describe securities that require full margin. Example: Sell stocks, buy index futures (and reverse) is the classic EFP equity trade. To be clear, futures are highly leveraged, thus do not require full margin.
Such a bold claim. Since we are talking about stock indices here... Can you provide a well known (liquid) non-leveraged example that does not directly trade the underlying stocks? It would probably make the create/redeem process more complex for market makers.
Hat tip! I was not aware that Europe has very particular laws (different from the US) about how ETFs need to treat dividends. As a result, using an underlying equity swap is more tax efficient than owning the shares directly. For US-listed ETFs, I believe that my original point still stands: Well-known (liquid) non-leveraged ETFs hold physical shares instead of replicating returns with derivatives (equity swaps).
reply