This is an extremely popular view that recently has been disseminated and while based on fact, is emotional propaganda. It basically exists as a justification for Trump’ and this administrations actions, along the lines of “they’ve always done it, at least we don’t hide it” and gives them a combination of legitimacy and a strange sense of “doing the right thing”.
I understand that it’s true that the USA has been problematic in the past but in this case, the story being sold to people about the US “always” having been bad exists to convince people that there is no other way, and you either have to accept it or tear it all down. Interestingly both benefit the current administration
It’s not like you ever owned anything when you built something on top of these sorts of services.
I think it is clear that there is no point providing AI based services via 3rd party AI. Openrouter may even end up with a similar fate if the upstream providers make a similar ToS change. I’ve always thought of Openrouter as a useful tool for development and chat that lets me add a zoo of models quickly. Anything relatively close to production? Fix a model version and use a providers API, for as long as that’s supported.
same argument could apply for AWS tho, you wouldn't expect them to just cut you off and all your sub-customers because you are leveraging the infrastructure YOU PAY for your users...
Maybe there was value in the discussions that didn’t require the reading? But running seminars isn’t hobby material. If this was happening at my work, I may skim or not even read parts of the book, and still attend discussions.
Sure— but that is different to “increases” which makes it seem as though they experienced increases due to AI use. The academic use of “increased” is more standard and in line with what you said, is kind of fine.
I think the answer to this is ultimately economic, and that people will only change their habits when it comes down to what costs them money. Naturally this is because culturally, we have defined our life in this way, and those who value money benefit from the existing culture.
People who treat money as the only resource they need to navigate life stand to lose when things get expensive, but stand to lose even more when other forms of resource (energy, family connections, community) are needed.
As an extension of this I think extreme wealth inequality won’t ever be solved by a more equal distribution of money, and only can be solved by a devaluing of money as compared to other resources and thus a reduction in the power that money has. It’s not surprising then that billionaires end up spending their money on what gives them more control rather than what is a sensible monetary decision, like Musk purchasing Twitter.
Typing on my iPhone in the last few months (~6 months?) has been absolutely atrocious. I've tried disabling/enabling every combination of keyboard setting I can thinkj of, but the predictive text just randomly breaks or it just gives up and stops correcting anything at all.
It’s not just you, and it got bad on my work iPhone at the same time so I know it’s not failing hardware or some customization since I keep that quite vanilla.
Medical care will always be limited in the real world, no matter the system. There's a bunch of possibilities:
Limiting what you can be treated for (EU)
Oh and this is horrible too. When the government is forced to implement limits such as this, they always carve out their own care as a special case (yes, Parlementarians and government officials have different, better, health care, especially when it comes to long-term care, coverage outside of your own country and emergencies. The UN has it's own system as well, for example), and they impose limits.
In Belgium there's a joke. There's 2 treatments in Belgium that are not like everything else when it comes to national health insurance: anorexia for teenagers and a certain congenital disease. They are covered despite it being a BIG negative in terms of money for the insurance/state. This is strange, it doesn't match what they "usually" do at all. Now one might go and check if what the daughter of the prime minister is in treatment for (she's a teenager). One might check what the daughter of 2 prime ministers back, French side, is in treatment for (she's much older, which is strange, given that given the particular congenital disease life expectation ... without gene treatment which is normally a no-no for the national insurance. Just look up "Baby Pia" to see how much they fight it normally). I resent identifying the patients involved to this degree, but obviously their family relation to currently in power politicians matters a whole lot in this case.
From everyone else "reasonableness" is required: for example moral limits. E.g. political decisions about organ replacement: no organ replacements allowed if you've been treated for drug addiction at any point in your life. No gene treatments, no matter how life-saving they will be. Strict (and quickly changing) limits to psychological care, as politically convenient at the time. Using changes in coverage to guarantee jobs. Etc.
Limiting how much is covered (US)
Basically you paid in X, you get < X back. Either it covers or it doesn't. Use whatever care you want. The US profit-driven system.
Which do you want?
In practice, of course, to some extent both systems are limited in both ways. You cannot get treatment for absolutely anything in the US, and you cannot really exceed what you pay in for coverage in the EU (you can, however, in both system get insurance to cover you not working for a decade). But the emphasis of the different systems is very different. Mostly the above classification is true.
What was pretty popular when it was available was medical care, limited to cheaper care. Making sure you get expertise when dealing with a broken leg or pregnancy or ... but for example explicitly excluding psychiatric problems (which are really expensive). However, this means the government has to provide a place to live for people who cannot live by themselves and so the government always insists this is included in private insurance. The problem, of course, is that it's both necessary for some people and easy to abuse to get long-term care without a job. Since the government doesn't want to pay for this largely but not entirely abuse of the system, they force it into the insurance.
I’ve certainly had that particularly with older Dell XPS computers. So has Linus at LTT, which I suppose how it entered folklore.
I say this as my lab mate had his laptop do exactly that just last week, with up to date windows and a newer XPS laptop. It simply has never happened to my Macs
I understand that it’s true that the USA has been problematic in the past but in this case, the story being sold to people about the US “always” having been bad exists to convince people that there is no other way, and you either have to accept it or tear it all down. Interestingly both benefit the current administration
reply