> Consistent with the U.S. Army tradition of honoring Native American tribes
The Continental Army enlisted Native Americans to fight alongside them against the British, and then once war ended, slaughtered them, took their lands and drove the remaining survivors to the parts of the country we cared about the least. At least we can honor them by naming our future tools of war after them.
Inferring from first principles, the down selected competitor looked to have more effective engineered lethality and manoeuvrability, smaller approach outline.
> It’s the official communication that sucks. It’s one thing for the product to be a black box if you can trust the company.
A company providing a black box offering is telling you very clearly not to place too much trust in them because it's harder to nail them down when they shift the implementation from under one's feet. It's one of my biggest gripes about frontier models: you have no verifiable way to know how the models you're using change from day to day because they very intentionally do not want you to know that. The black box is a feature for them.
I've read so many conflicting things about Mythos that it's become impossible to make any real assumptions about it. I don't think it's vaporware necessarily, but the whole "we can't release it for safety reasons" feels like the next level of "POC or STFU".
You're confusing collusion with being informed. The concept of market rationality is based on the premise that all participants in said market more or less have access to the same information. Fools can choose to not be informed before making a trade, but passing along sensitive information that contradicts market rational behavior causes people to lose trust in the market.
Perfect example from today. Allbirds just announced that they're going all in on AI infra, skyrocketing the stock. Had I bought a million dollars worth of Allbirds yesterday, everyone would think I'm an idiot. But now, they would think I have insider information and would no longer want to participate because it would make no sense to buy Allbirds yesterday unless I knew the announcement was coming.
It's long been speculated that they clandestinely participate in the resale market. If the goal of a business is to maximize profit and they control the market and technology around it, they have everything they need to push prices to the absolute limit that a customer is willing to pay.
Based on what came out during the course of the trial, it would not surprise me at all if they are double-selling tickets.
It's wild that everyone seems to have forgotten that Ticketmaster acquired TradeDesk and actively marketed to scalpers [1] just a couple of years ago. Seems they shut down the platform last year, maybe the "ticket bank" [2] idea worked better... Pretty clear to me that they will use any chance to monetize their monopoly.
it's all an aesthetic experience, no? for the live entertainment business, it is aesthetically important to fans of Bruce Springsteen that his tickets have a number on them that appears on a website that feels good, and that number happens to be "price of ticket," even if hardly anyone is actually paying that number - they are usually paying more.
personally, i don't think any of this legal shit matters. the sherman antitrust act is 1 paragraph long, so it is flexible in terms of how you want this stuff to work, from a, "I would like the world to work as though it were governed by a priesthood" point of view. so it's reductive to talk about, what does the law say? very little of interest.
how should it work? live nation should be able to do whatever the hell it wants. it would make more money for everyone, at the cost of nothing. it would be good for the music industry to make more money. apple should not have lost the antitrust case over books either. nobody forces you to go to concerts! if you have a problem with ticket prices, make tiktoks complaining about it targeted at the artists. stop listening to their music. but IMO, the live performance cultural phenomenon, it doesn't benefit from this kind of regulation.
Hot take: Rails is well-positioned in the long run because it's one of the few mature stacks that has managed to keep it's core offering community-oriented and not needing to choose between its developers and business operations. VCs getting into bed with JS and PHP tooling companies does not bode well for users of those stacks in the long term, IMO.
Yeah the Rails and Django models seem better to me too, but as far as I understand they do rely on effectively charity work from open source maintainers and from what I've read a lot of them are getting burnt out really fast, so maybe that's not the perfect model either :/
True, but there were also many younger people who never wanted him to run in the first place. One of the major downsides of the two-party system is that the major parties maintain a duopoly of power, significantly stifling alternative movements (like the Sanders progressives) from making major inroads politically even though public support is widespread. This is a systemic flaw in American politics.
This is an intentional feature of modern American politics. It's not what the founding fathers intended, but if you think that gerrymandering, lobbying, and 2 party dominance don't benefit those who currently hold power in the US you're crazy.
True, but there's an inextricable link between life expectancy and wealth that can't be ignored and a very strong positive correlation documented between the two. Poor old people aren't the enemy as they never had power to begin with. Wealthy old people, on the other hand, represent one of the most regressive voting blocs in American politics, and have voted largely to expand the power of the wealthy.
They also love to determine their vote based on social issues rather than economic/political issues. I blame religion but regardless of the cultural motives it boils down to echoes of racism/xenophobia from their parents' generation.
The Continental Army enlisted Native Americans to fight alongside them against the British, and then once war ended, slaughtered them, took their lands and drove the remaining survivors to the parts of the country we cared about the least. At least we can honor them by naming our future tools of war after them.
reply