The Romans were deforesting the Mediterranean 2000 years ago. Aboriginal Australians continually burnt the land for 50,000 years creating the desert Australia you see today. Humans have been majorly changing the environment for a very long time.
its a different business model? IBs dont generally hold debt to maturity. they underwrite the debt then gradually sell down in the weeks/months following the deal. their business is making money on the spread/underwriting margin.
What does this have to do with internalizing costs to businesses? By your logic, the government should just subsidize all consumer goods... Which, okay maybe I actually agree with you? (Jk I'm not that much of a socialist. I think markets are great, and we should leverage them by fully pricing externalities like road damage or pollution, enabling the market to solve some of our big problems)
Imagine if we subsidized things that were an orange colour. Market prices of orange things would go down and consumption of orange things would go up. It wouldn't make sense to say "this is helping the many people that consume orange things therefore it is good".
It’s extremely good. Chinese, Japanese, Korean. Had multiple instances of confusion because the counterparty thought I was actually a native speaker because we had only communicated over text. Both commercial and social contexts. Translation is now effectively solved.
Edit: I should add like all LLM usage, you need to prompt well. I also like to run the translation back through DeepL for a more traditional technology read on it and to identify any obvious issues.
they don't light it on fire. it circulates in the economy. plenty of working class people doing enormously well from the data centre, chip production build out.
Money would circulate at least as much if used for climate solutions and even more so if given to workers. The AI build out is not benefitting workers, like hardly at all, it creates a dismal amount of jobs, and is raising utility prices for many of us.
Ah yes, "the things will never improve if you help workers one iota" mantra. There's nothing else to say except you want workers to suffer and think progress is based on the amount of immiseration we inflict onto workers.
It's a sick anti-human ideology and it's not shocking when you look at how anti-human tech leaders truly are.
What’s the issue? They didn’t like your licence terms, and rewrote the library under a permissive licence? You don’t have a right to users or an audience.
I agree with that, I never said that was the issue. If you read my message, I answered to:
> but the only thing that protects Free Software (open source) is copyright law
I was merely asking them to elaborate on that, because IMHO, copyright law doesn't protect copyleft licences much (I mentioned people going for or rewriting permissive alternatives, which is now a whole lot easier with LLMs), and copyright is not protecting permissive licences at all.
I have been in companies that distributed hundreds of copyleft and permissive binaries without mentioning them. Copyright says that "in theory, it was illegal". In practice, nobody cares.
I see value in open source, but I don't think that copyright is the only thing protecting it.
Yes. "You choose to sign the contract" is not a reasonable argument, for two reasons:
1. There is one supplier, so you have no choice.
2. Even if you had a choice to sign the contract, this still means that it's not the same as a trade-in, because trade-ins are always voluntary, but once you have signed the contract, a right of first refusal is not.
In general, the "you chose to sign the contract" argument is a poor justification for bad contracts. If the contract is bad, it is bad regardless of whether you chose to sign it.
Given that it includes health care, education, and a ton of vacation, yeah, they will find that they lead a much better life.
The goal isn't to maximize the number. The goal is to lead a good life. The number can help with that, but not if you focus on it to the exclusion of the things that matter.
reply