Easily wayyy more than that given both the loosening standards of what a disability is combined with over-diagnosis. But I get your sentiment. When I was a kid, disabled meant you were in a wheelchair or needed someone to physically feed you, and now it means you have an Adderall prescription.
People have different ideas of what "disabled" means.
Broadening the definition makes it less useful in many ways. I would consider "disabled" to mean one of:
- Unable to ambulate effectively (requires crutches or worse)
- Unable to look after oneself as an adult (for any combination of reasons)
- Unable to use tools and items most people would consider standard - eg. can't hold a pencil, write, type, whatever.
That's a fairly harsh definition of disabled, but all of these people unambiguously require accommodation because of their incapacity. It's also off the top of my head, so I'd happily broaden it if you want to argue the point.
If I can talk to someone for an entire day and not realise or notice they are disabled in some way, I question the definition being used - how helpful is it in deciding how we should allocate additional resources and help in that case?
> However, big caveat - it's self-reported. If you look at how many people get disability benefit it's around 10%.
I don't know about the UK, but in the US, in order to get social security disability, you need to have a documented disability and there's also income limits. If you have a disability, but you manage to find a career despite the disability, you'll lose eligibility for social security disability or at least you'll lose the social security payments. Depending on the disabilities in question, I think it's reasonable that 60% of people with a disability can find work that pays enough that they are no longer eligible for a disability payment and/or they've reached the age where they get a retirement/old age insurance benefit rather than disability.
Because it's bullshit? Kids today don't understand that they are not special, everyone's different and the diagnosis you get from a TikTok video is not real.
Bell also "just" provided telephone service, but had a nation-wide practical monopoly, and so was broken up into different regional operators.
The US has since gotten bad at dealing with companies like this. A company like Google or Amazon could/should be broken up into a few parts and would likely result in those parts together being worth more than when it was just the one company, and more competition in each industry.
Too early and the break-up can kill innovation. Too late and the company will have been a rent-seeking operation for so long that it chokes out dynamism.
It might be too early for OpenAI, but we shouldn't wait until they own all of the next Internet in the way Facebook, Google and Amazon ended up.
Yeah: it had a nationwide monopoly. Breaking up the Bells meant breaking that monopoly. That was the public policy goal of forcibly reorganizing the company.
How do you apply that to the OpenAI case? You have to draw the rest of the owl here.
No, I'm just not being clear enough. OpenAI doesn't have a monopoly. They don't even meaningfully have colluding BUs; you can't "break them up" (you'd basically just be killing it).
Killing or intentionally degrading a business can be legit public policy, but then just say that, don't pretend that the problem is that OpenAI is anticompetitive.
> It might be too early for OpenAI, but we shouldn't wait until they own all of the next Internet in the way Facebook, Google and Amazon ended up.
He wasn't proposing breaking it up as it is, which is what your comment assumes.
However, as I said in another comment, they do have other products (Sora and others in the pipeline that are meaningfully separate from their core product). I'd agree it's too early to break them up (at least by conventional anti-trust standards), and that if anything, they should be regulated on other dimensions.
No, they don't? Sora is a separate product, and they're working on a social media platform. And that thing with Jony Ive. Other things, too, that I'm sure I'm forgetting.
At any rate, this looks like they made a headline out of a passing comment. I wouldn't read too much into it.
That's not how the EU works. As an example take the Mercosur treaty: it has 4 parts. The first post is straight up trade rules, an area that the Eau member states delegated to the EU. This part was directly valid once signed.
The other three parts all concern areas not delegated to the EU. To become law, all three parts have to be approved by the EU parliament and the EU council (which consists of the heads of the executives of the member states) and the local parliaments of the member states. Depending on local law, even regional parliaments have to approve it (Belgium is such a state). The final implementation of Mercosur is not expected before 2028.
Wait until you hear about the gluon, the mediator of the strong force, which is an excitation in the gluon field, and is also the only other particle that is massless and moves at C. However unlike the photon the excitation has a really short range because gluons interact with gluons and form flux tubes between quarks, the further you pull two quarks apart, the more energy you need to use, eventually the energy is so great that it spawns a new quark from the vacuum.
Compared to EM it's just weird as hell and tbh I don't like it.
Good luck with the regulatory process in Europe. Cloudflare is going to have to register as a financial institution. There's no way they will be able to roll this out globally.
Madness for the USA, but a win for Europe if our kids are shielded from right wing American content. I wish Europe could do this with X. Force Elon to create a wall between US and EU users.
The US is simply too polarized, and clearly has been intentionally made so, and it has spread over here, but thankfully not to the same extreme.
Of course it is bad for the international community that all nation's people aren't connected but since the US really wants to become isolationist may as well look on the bright side.
And personally I don't consider the world exluding the US as an echo chamber, even just the EU is far from an echo chamber, it is a continent of many unique countries, US concerns are heard over here in the EU a lot even if a whole lot of it doesn't matter over here and just causes polarization.
When something like this happen the companies affected should terminate the accounts of all government officials under the guise "if the population can't use our site, neither can you who work in the government"
Not a chance in hell.