So lets only boycott small and inconsequential companies like Mullvad that are easily replaceable. However not companies like Apple, Intel or Nvidia etc. whose CEOs have expressed their personal admiration of Trump and supported him financially because it would not be very convenient?
To be fair that seems to be reasonably rational i.e. anthropomorphising lawnmowers is a fool’s errand while its feasible to actually make a difference in cases like this
Their CEOs and the tech megacorps have been openly supporting Trump and financing both him personally and his political projects. There is no ambiguity in that at all.
I don’t remember Tim Apple or any other tech CEOs almost literally groveling at the feet of any other president besides Trump.
> They don't have to also be the main supporter of some ethnic cleansing party
True OTH that party is mostly inconsequential and has no direct power. Tech companies enabling and legitimizing MAGA by openly supporting the movement arguably results in way more damage on aggregate even if they are only financing through outright bribery.
To be fair arguably there is no other country in the world which benefited as much economically from its interactions with Nazi Germany and face so little consequences for it.
By any chance are you using any Apple products and are you a supporter of Donald Trump? Because if the answer is yes and no singling out Mullvad seems be rather hypocritical?
Based on his actions Tim Apple openly is an ardent supporter of Trump. So effectively everyone here who has a MacBook was supporting a company run by by a pro MAGA ceo...
Of course greed and corruption might be considered a mitigating factor by some people (instead of seemingly doing it purely due to one's personal convictions and without any coercion which is presumably the case here
You are assuming the interest of people making those designs were aligned with the interests of consumers. They obviously were only to a very small degree since there were almost no incentives for Soviet companies to produce anything that wasn’t complete crap. Consumers had no choice since even the crap products they produced were hardly ever available to normal people anyway.
> USSR just wasn't rich enough
To an extent by choice. They really didn’t utilize the resources they had optimally.
Usually to maximize its funding the company would move its HQ to the US and if they are lucky have an IPO there and eventually become effectively American after a few years (e.g. Unity)
According to benchmarks which are gamed to the extreme these days. Trusting them blindly isn’t exactly rational either. They don’t necessarily translate that well to real world tasks
It’s obviously not “distilling” as such but there are reasons why Chinnese models are consistently several months behind OpenAI/Antropic
Without Google’s funding its not obvious i DeepMind would have went anywhere.
Unless the moved to US for funding while keeping a back office in the UK.
It’s strange to expect anything significant to come out from Europe when VCs there are either very risk averse and/or don’t have enough cash to begin with. It’s not like government or EU funding can replace that since its almost always wasted or missdirected
> if you get colon cancer you get $30,000 for treatments
And… what if its not enough?
But yeah, extreme inefficiency and inflated costs due to poor regulation seems like the main issue in the US.
It’s not however obvious that less regulation would solve that, i.e. you have countries like Switzerland or the Netherlands with entirely privatised healthcare (more so than in the US) yet they have quite strict regulation and price controls and are doing just fine.
They did that. But when the AI craze hit turned that all the 8GB base model Macs didn’t have enough space for even basic models (in addition to the 1-2 electron apps you can run simultaneously).
Of course seems like local AI is more or less a flop in the consumer market at least?
But still IMHO even for general use macos with 8GB is almost unusable unless you use it like an Ipad.
Anthropic is neither a monopoly nor has a dominant market position. Generally standards applied to companies like that are very different due to good reason.
So lets only boycott small and inconsequential companies like Mullvad that are easily replaceable. However not companies like Apple, Intel or Nvidia etc. whose CEOs have expressed their personal admiration of Trump and supported him financially because it would not be very convenient?
To be fair that seems to be reasonably rational i.e. anthropomorphising lawnmowers is a fool’s errand while its feasible to actually make a difference in cases like this