I disagree, I think she articulated it very well. At scale you have sound bites, that's it.
She captured the truth, that our current system vastly favors capital over labor (etc etc etc), and did that in around six or seven words.
You can't really do better than that when communicating ideas at scale. What she said is true, it's for essays, economic papers, and laws to provide the nuance.
My experience is that open weight models from China are at least ~12 months behind. In some workloads they may be closer, in others further away.
I also find that the harness and product you wrap around models can often narrow that gap considerably.
Opus 4.6 for example, on a PR-for-PR basis was head and shoulders above GLM 5.1. Perhaps GLM 5.1 was a bit under Sonnet 4.6 at the time. That's roughly a year or so behind.
Much cheaper though! I'm bullish on open weight models, I have no idea where all these curves will top out, can the frontier labs keep the year plus lead? Do open labs get close enough to SOTA that they gain adoption across many tasks and drive down inference prices??? Who knows, not me.
Light would travel six feet on a cable in about 10 nanoseconds, is that the sort of latency that you're referencing?
I would be surprised to learn that nanoseconds of latency is worth more than much better compute, lower cost, lighter weight, more physical space in the device etc.
You're not wrong in the long term, either in general or for SpaceX.
In the long term, hopefully the market stabilizes, new entrants can challenge Nvidia etc. But of course maybe not!
However for SpaceX, this is a dead end move. They made a good decision on buying this compute when they did but they failed to use it to create a compelling model.
So they're selling access to recoup some of their investment (maybe a profit?). But what's the plan as these chips age out over the next three to five years? Become a compute company? They claim they want to... in space!
Regardless, they bought some valuable chips, failed to use them, but can now sell access and recoup over the next few years before they become outdated.
We haven't been able to produce a complete F-35 since Feb 2026 because we lack the necessary rare earths to do create their electronics.
Why? Because we stopped doing that work (and science) in the 90s and now China produces over 90% of rare earths on the planet and said the US can't have any for military purposes (its being negotiated).
There are zero under and post graduate programs that specialize in rare earth extraction and refining outside of China. None. And China has barred their scientists from collaborating with any colleagues from the US on the topic.
Sooooo, you're right, the F-35 program offers a lot, but can it do so "by itself" and does it provide that value in an economically viable way? Much less clear cut of an answer.
Block 4 is the only version they'd dare put up against a peer air defense, and Block 4 is delayed, delayed, delayed, and . . nowhere in sight, at the moment.
There has been two and a half decades of FUD billowing around the entire program, like the world's most expensive fart, so don't expect to know the truth until they fly the thing past Zamami Island in anger. But I personally will be mentally prepared for disappointment, with some bitter despair as digestif.
This ruling is the exact opposite of the recent proposal from Hawaii.
That ruling is predicated on the state having control over corporations and how they behave. This ruling in Delaware is affirming a clear path for corporations to have control over the state (county, city etc).
With this ruling, it affirms a corporations ability to form air tight rule over municipal governments and operate them as they see fit. Once a corporation manufactures a majority vote in this municipality, they can then amend any rules they see fit, install their own executive leadership and have removed any corporate control over it.
In the thin sense these are both jurisdictions controlling how corporations behave, but one cedes complete control to corporations and the other vastly limits a corporation's ability to exert political control.
>This ruling is the exact opposite of the recent proposal from Hawaii.
Understood, but state-control of corporate charters (in both cases) is the underlying enabler.
>In the thin sense these are both jurisdictions controlling how corporations behave, but one cedes complete control to corporations and the other vastly limits a corporation's ability to exert political control.
My original claim is that states ought'a have Tenth Amendment Rights – no? – what they do with it also ought'a be up to their homerulings.
----
Personally, I support Hawaii's newfound corporate speech limitation.
> Personally, I support Hawaii's newfound corporate speech limitation.
Couldn't agree more!
My point is that it is the same underlying power, but one is using the power to maintain and grow powers over corps, the other using the same power to cede it.
This was my original point, as well; but I fumbled on the communicative part – in my more-balkanized fantasies: it is my hope that the Federal System successfully tears itself apart, in its many differences.
That such a Constitution allows such jurisdictional diversity is kind of the entire point of Its governing, I'guess. #neat
If it costs you $1B and five years to build out new supply and you think demand will not sustain for more than three years, it does not make sense to expand supply.
Instead you will maintain your margins currently and await demand to decrease back to your current supply.
This is pretty common and as others have pointed out is even more common in markets where competition is slow and lead times are long.
Ammunition is a great example over the last decade or so as political turnover caused relatively short lived demand spikes and manufacturers didn't expand supply because they knew once political winds shift, demand would decrease.
She captured the truth, that our current system vastly favors capital over labor (etc etc etc), and did that in around six or seven words.
You can't really do better than that when communicating ideas at scale. What she said is true, it's for essays, economic papers, and laws to provide the nuance.
reply