fyi: it does not build for me from the source code.

Rebuild Failed

An unhandled error occurred inside electron-rebuild node-gyp failed to rebuild '[...]/1code/node_modules/node-pty'

Error: node-gyp failed to rebuild '[...]/1code/node_modules/node-pty' at ChildProcess.<anonymous> ([...]/1code/node_modules/@electron/rebuild/lib/module-type/node-gyp/node-gyp.js:121:24) at ChildProcess.emit (node:events:508:28) at ChildProcess._handle.onexit (node:internal/child_process:294:12) node:child_process:1000 throw err; ^

Honestly I think privacy is lost. Regardless of what side you were (big fan of privacy here) I feel we have nothing to do but move on and think how to live in a world without privacy.

I never wanted privacy anyway: I wanted no discrimination, inclusion, healthy democracy, etc, etc.

Privacy has always been a tool for me.

At this point, selective privacy like we are experiencing today (we cannot know what’s in the epstein files, but google can send a drone and look into my backyard) serves none of the things I am interested in!

The basic structure of your argument is equivalent to, "I've given up on being allowed to leave my house, I just want to go to the places I need to go."

what a ludicrously insane take. how can you not believe in privacy? do you think what you do in your home should be private, or do you think it’s fine for someone to put cameras in there? If you do, please feel free to invite them to do so; do not feel free to invite them to put cameras in my home.

Privacy for me is not that important. I have nothing to hide, nothing I am ashamed of. For me it's more of a way of protecting from abuse that a need of its own. I realize it's just me and I do advocate for privacy, but if you look around: we lost. Our data is everywhere and there are no consequences whatsoever. PS: I did mention in my original comment that Google and many others already send drones with cameras to spy on your backyard and that is considered "fine". I am not inviting them to come to your house; they are already doing it. Just check Google Maps.

> Privacy for me is not that important. I have nothing to hide

“Saying you don’t need privacy because you have nothing to hide is like saying you don’t need freedom of speech because you have nothing to say." — Edward Snowden

It’s a very privileged position to believe you have nothing to hide and not be worried about the consequences. Unfortunately, not everyone is so lucky. Many people live in fear for their freedom and lives for elementary things they can’t change and shouldn’t have to hide, such as one’s sexual orientation. We should think of them as well.

What I’m taking issue with is that you said you never really cared about privacy. I care about my family’s privacy. I’m not asking you to care about yours. I’m sorry you’ve given up on something that wasn’t important to you anyway, or whatever.

I think you misunderstood him for me. Regardless, giving up is not something I mentioned. You guys just inferred it. I just feel we need to approach the battle very differently. What we have been doing it's not working.

it’s hard to take that at face value when you also said privacy in and of itself is not that important to you. If you want to build a glass bathroom, be my guest, but I’ll keep putting up better walls for me and mine

What??

For 5000 years there were no surveillance cameras or ways to surveil communications! (other than the little that was said by mail)

People don't hate automation. They hate BAD automation.

From your description seems like: Waymo -> Good Automation, Call Center -> Bad Automation.

The day we will have a chatgpt level automated customer care experience, we will complain every time humans answer our requests, with their accents and attitudes!

"Hi, how can I help y—"

"TALK TO A ROBOT"

Oh man, hope it's ok to poke a little fun. I think we just violently agreed with me praising automation from one company and deriding automation from another. So I'll update your "seems like": Riding with Waymo (IME) -> Good Automation, Lyft customer support when they "stole" $3 from me and didn't provide me with a way to fix it -> Bad Automation.

Do you think it's bad automation? I think it's a cost optimisation thing, we don't give refunds and we don't give people a channel to complain. We only measure revenue from trips and as long as that stays up the service quality is ok.

>> People don't hate automation

This is not true.

In the broad sense, people are in favor of automation. Most people aren't clamoring for the days before the stove, dishwasher, and car (all automated versions of past technologies).

That being said, I think a lot of people are against automation when it does something worse than the manual version. Think automated customer service over a human being.

Most people don't like change so are resistant to it. It's the same with electric cars a lot of people are resistant to it because of false range anxiety but when people actually use ev for extended period most of then stay with electric.

I don't see people hating that their network packets are automatically routed through the internet

I think a more interesting question is: who is “self”? US is historically more prone to favor business, while EU seems more concerned in protecting consumers. And of course there is the noise generated by incompetence/corruption/lobbying that makes the question of “in the interest of whom are laws made?” very nuanced.

Very good points. I've been trying to figure out whose interest is in our "national interests" my entire life. It sure ain't protecting my interests or those of anyone I love that justifies a trillion dollar a year military.

The trillion dollar military is Americas welfare system. You may be chronically confused why no politician dem/republican/liberal/conservative ever wants to cut funding for it, and toss it up as obvious collusion between mega-contractors and politicians.

Well it is. And it's willful. That trillion dollars is spent almost entirely on US made things by US workers. Only a small slice (still large in absolute terms) goes to those mega-contractors. The rest is the only thing that has kept any semblance of American manufacturing alive. The military buys everything (this isn't an exaggeration, you would be hard pressed to find something in your life that they don't buy in quantity) , and there are countless businesses that pay decent wages with benefits for low skilled workers in every state that are only still in existence because of military spending.

It also functions as an incubator, having special provisions for small businesses, especially those owned by marginalized people or located in especially impoverished areas. Basically "We need need coffee filters, so if you buy the equipment and higher the workers, we'll sign a contract to buy 2,000,000 packages a year from you. (And it's a kick-your-door-down felony if you try to backdoor foreign made filters)."

That's why it is never cut. It's a welfare plan that republicans agree too because it requires holding down a job to access. It comes with the side effects of keeping factories running and getting an overpowered military.

The US military is also an enormous and very successful jobs program.

Also there may be some foreign policy applications.

And it was an explicit pact between US and European countries: you can have socialism and not much military (because who wants a huge German army??), while we will do our socialism via our military, which in turn will protect you.

But now our politicians are so dumb they don't realize that's what was agreed long ago, and think they can have one part of that deal and not the other.

I am pretty sure if the US decided to get rid of its military entirely, then it wouldnt be long before it was invaded by Russia or China and then the interests of the people you love would be severly impacted.

The world stage is no more a safe place than it has been for any other part of history.

Or invaded by liberating Canadians. We can dream...

Straw man. Nobody said anything about “getting rid of its military entirely.”

> then it wouldnt be long before it was invaded by Russia or China

I would be lying if I claimed I hadn't dreamed of being liberated by a foreign power with more cultural competence at governance (which excludes Russia, obviously, but they probably at least aren't worse), but realistically anything but a slow scale-down in military power would probably entail the bloodiest world (and civil) war in history. Maybe nukes, too.

But, there's a fork in the road. We can choose to scale down our military presence (and control of trade) today, and figure out how we actually want to exist in a global community outside of letting our corporations swing their dicks freely... Or we can blow trillions of dollars continuing to make fools of ourselves rampaging through other countries rather than building high speed rail before we lose our grip on hegemony anyway as a matter of pure economics.

Or, I suppose, we can just murder anyone who disagrees with us until we're just miserably exploiting each other inside of high walls armed with automated guns. Something tells me that's the option we're going to pick.

> US is historically more prone to favor business, while EU seems more concerned in protecting consumers.

Well that's not that obvious... Sure EU is more than willing to protect consumers from foreign(American) megacorporation because the cost of doing that is very low.

Entrenched major local companies? Well stifling competition through excessive regulation and propping up to bit too fall semi-zombie corporations is not necessarily that great for consumers long-term.

Do you have examples of targeted protections against foreign companies? Everything that comes to mind to me applies to all companies local or foreign.

Hypothetical local companies? The type of major tech corporations that are effected by DMA and similar regulations simply do not exist in Europe.

Regulating and fining them is very cheap politically when there are no jobs that can be lost or lobbyists to disappoint.

just to note that if “30% voted for this” participation was roughly 60%

63.9% per https://www.cfr.org/article/2024-election-numbers Which apparently was quite high. Only 3 presidential elections in the past 100 years exceeded 63%: 1960, 2020, and 2024.

Can someone explain to me why EU VAT is considered a tariff, while US sales taxes are not? They both seem a sale tax to me.

Because VAT is collected at the border on imports, some people (wrongly) consider VATs a tariff. Considering that VAT is rebated on exports, VATs are trade neutral.

Sales tax as implemented in the US is not as tax efficient as VAT due to the impact of sales taxation on intermediate transactions during manufacturing. VAT only taxes the incrementally the value added at each transaction) whereas sales tax applies to the entire value at each stage.

Hmm how is it different in the US do you not get back in the sales tax that you paid for your input. Here the middle man pay tax on the buying price and then collects on the sell price. Then has to pay the government minus what they paid as input sale tax. So all increments on the price gets taxed till the end user. But the tax itself is not taxed again.

Im fairly certain VAT is collected at point of sale in the EU.

Does the US charge sales tax on B2B transactions? Really? Well no wonder you have problems with domestic manufacturing.

Many B2B transactions are tax-exempt but it's complicated. And gets really complicated once international transactions are considered. And also whether the company has a physical nexus in the place the product is being purchased. All in all, I think it would be simpler if the US adopted VAT. But that seems very unlikely.

Unlikely, given that the current administration seems incapable of understanding what VAT is in the first place…

Last I checked VAT is the same rate regardless if the product is made in China or by pinguins on Antarctica so why anyone in the US gives a damn is beyond me.

There's no federal sales tax so it varies by state.

Only people who are wrong consider VAT a tariff. Yes, importers have to pay it, but so do local manufacturers.

VAT has basically the same effect as sales taxes with a much more complicated tax incidence.

At an individual level, it’s not more complicated: it’s reimbursed instead of exempted. And if you’re charging it, it’s easier, since you simply always charge instead of maintaining your list of exceptions.

UK VAT certainly has a complicated list of exceptions, especially "non-luxury food" (see the Jaffa Cake case https://www.astonshaw.co.uk/jaffa-cake-tax/)

But these are per-product, not per-customer. (Businesses, charities, and some customers are exempt from sales tax regardless of what they are buying.)

Really wondering about the same, since VAT is applied to everything too, not only imported products and services.

The answer is: rhetoric. It's a fake argument to justify US tariffs. It won't work for people like you and me, but Trump fans will love it.

They're not. Only disingenuous charlatans say they are.

Memory Bandwidth 273 GB/s

Not comparable with an H series gpu. I am not sure what kind of applications make sense but I am sure that if it sells enough, developers will find a way to squeeze good stuff out of this.

Edge inference most likely. Its FP4 performance is about 1/3 of 5090, power 170W for the whole thing. It can run big model or several small. Shifting balance to memory favors MoE. Would be nice to see FP32 numbers, they are used in training. My guess about 20 TFLOP, may be more, but 5090 is still times better.

Is this saying that it is focussed on inference and would be less cost-effective for trainimg as compared to alternatives?

I agree. It’s as easy as that if you respect people having different values. But these laws come from a “my god told me that this is right” mindset and you can’t really argue with that. if this is what people want, so be it. who cares!

"easy"? ISP can only apply the rules per-connection, so it's not great for parental control. It also can't enforce any filtering past the domain, so sex subreddits are still open. It also creates a list of people enabling sex sites. It would still be a problematic solution.

you can just make a law that websites are required to flag the html for pages that contain rated content so that isp and parents can filter whatever they want. all without infringung on people freedom.

i am sure smarter people than me can come up with an even better solution. this honestly just feel more like imposing religious values than anything else

ISP should never be and to see the HTML. If they can, that's already a huge privacy issues.

If you want to use the content and filter client-side, that's nothing to do with ISPs and there's lots of apps that already do it.

same rules that apply to pornography should apply to any religious site too. no one under 18 should be subjected to lunacy of religious websites that exist and yet… :)

You ever notice how the parents who are loudest about "parental rights" are the ones who coerce and groom their children into religion before they're old enough to consent or even understand the metaphysical underpinnings of religious belief?

yup, exactly!

new?

Unfortunately if the answer is no, it does not mean law enforcement can’t