If you divided the competitors into “has freakishly long arms” and “doesn’t have freakishly long arms” groups to compete within, and Phelps met the metrics for freakishly long arms, are you saying you think he should be free to compete in either group?
If so, there was no point in dividing into groups.
That said, I am sure athletes and governing bodies could agree on a better solution than outright banning- for example all it takes is a group that pairs a freakishly long armed swimmer with not, and they compete as pairs. Or an open group- maybe someone without freakishly long arms will find a way to win.
Anyway, it’s sports, people will min/max everything you let them, and we know from history they may bend or break rules as well. At the end of the day someone has to make a rule and enforce it, over time it will evolve.
If you prefer ai slop, let me introduce you to moltbook! Some of the ai agents there were even trained by humans being paid by pedophilic fascist speed freaks, so they tend to be more amenable to that sort of thing than your typical human.
Why downplay the mass surveillance aspect by saying it's a request by "the military". It's a request by the department of defense, the parent organization of the NSA.
From what has been shared publicly, they absolutely did ask for contractual limits on domestic mass surveillance to be removed, and to my read, likely technical/software restrictions to be removed as well.
What the department of defense is legally allowed to do is irrelevant and a red herring.
You don’t work in hardware. Now someone has to open a box and put a charger in? And you have to ship air for the other SKU? How much fuel/energy was wasted shipping empty space?
No one is going to do that. They’re going to package them separately and ship the box. And the onus is STILL on the user to manually add a charger to their cart. When they forget or don’t realize, they’ll complain, just like people are complaining here.
The EU made a bad rule. They should have exempted electronics above a certain price point. Their rule only really makes sense in the context of junk that costs $9.99 being shipped with a cheap charger and cables that no one wants.
You’re right, the analogy makes no sense. And what’s more, Dario didn’t make the analogy. This blogger took a partial quote out of context and constructed a blog post around it.
If you listen to the interview, Dario is talking about the Trump trade deal with Nvidia being allowed to sell H200 chips to China, but the USA gets some taxes. He thinks it’s a bad deal for long term national security. He likens it to “selling NK nuclear weapons and bragging that the casings are made by Boeing”.
It’s not about AI/nukes being equivalents- it’s about making a bad deal with a rival, giving them something they want / reducing your superiority, just so you can brag about having made a deal.
That’s not what Dario said. This guy Ben took a partial quote and then used it to construct a strawman. And hey look, he was successful, you bought it.
Dario criticized the Trump admin policy of allowing Nvidia to sell advanced chipsets to China as being poor for long term national security. He said our model edge is dependent on the HW edge, and likened this Trump “deal” to selling nuclear weapons to NK and bragging that the casings were made by Boeing. You can go watch the video yourself.
He was attacking the Trump trade deal as being bad, and characterizing Trump as more concerned with being able to name drop a US company and say he made a great deal, rather than actually doing what is in the best interest of the country.
Do you just believe everything you read on the internet? Or was it Ben the bloggers amazing credentials of being an Apple INTERN in the company culture group? He’s a real philosopher king I’m sure.
This is on the EU. Not bundling a charger with electronics that cost hundreds of dollars/euros is dumb, and having it be a requirement is even dumber.
And yea I’m definitely still salty from the time I bought a 3DS and then got on a 14hr flight to Shanghai, only to find out it didn’t come with the proprietary charger.
If that’s what the EU wants then why didn’t they require it?
If you’re forced to break the two components into two SKUs, that’s what you’re going to do- optimize. Not make a third SKU to add confusion. What if you’re out of stock of the charger-less SKU? Does that put you in violation of EU rules?
If Ford sells Broncos, and Pete Hegseth says “I’m Batman, we want them with RPG launchers”, Ford is not required to create Bronco’s with RPG launchers.
If Pete wants AI killer robots and AI domestic mass surveillance tools, he can go put out a RFQ like literally any other DOD DARPA project in history and get bids.
If the T&C is agreed to up front, why shouldn't they be able to? If their client or potential client doesn't like the T&C, they can find another vendor.
Fascinating to cherry pick while trying to color an article as biased. Couldn’t even include an entire sentence?
“The incidents included a collision with a fixed object at 17 miles per hour, a crash with a bus while the Tesla vehicle was stopped, a crash with a truck at four miles per hour, and two cases where Tesla vehicles backed into fixed objects at low speeds.”
Anecdata, my i3 range was not perceptibly reduced after ~8 years, 82k miles. But the pack was thermally managed, and from what I understand, also didn’t allow you to go to true 0 or true 100 SOC.
Tesla lets you use it all, which gets bigger range numbers (for a time) but at the cost of degradation, if you use it.
I know the answer to both of these questions, and so do you.