You're surprised? I think harnesses are almost as important as the underlying model. Folks have been able to improve benchmark results by nearly 2x based on harness alone.
Harnesses are quickly becoming critical components of the "model" itself imo. Not shocking to me at all that a company that spots a revenue opportunity is keeping its harness closed source.
The word jurisdiction is where it gets confusing. The meaning of that word does not map 1:1 to its modern usage.
To wit, if we read it as "subject to the laws of the land", then the invading army exception does not make sense, invading soldiers are subject to the laws of the United States and have been tried and convinced of violating them. Note, diplomat exception still makes sense, they _are not_ subject to the laws of the land.
So, how do you define jurisdiction in this amendment in a way that covers both invading soldiers and diplomats? I don't think it is super straightforward.
To put good faith on the table, I ultimately agree with your opinion here that birthright citizenship is settled and the vast majority of folks arguing against it are doing so in bad faith. But I also recognize the text of the amendment has holes to my eyes and could be updated for clarity.
I expect mobile OS and maybe mobile app developers to do so.
Google has already downgraded memory for their upcoming Pixel 11 while at the same time imposing local running models as a first-class feature. Both decreasing the memory pool and increasing the demands on it.
The key is that they own the full stack (hardware and software) and can demand the OS be more efficient, along with perhaps forcing that goal on app developers as well via tightened background limits etc.
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.
> 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 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.
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.
Typically a strong account team builds processes with other teams (compliance, engineering, etc) that enshrines and insulates important accounts from accidents like this.
In this case, I'd expect major accounts (and maybe Railway isn't above this level?) to be in a protected tier that is immune from automated suspensions like this.
If suspicious traffic occurs that _would_ trigger a suspension like that, the account team would be paged. Because this may mean your important account was compromised, shipped a bug, has been hit by something and you should immediately start working _with_ them to figure it out.
Fairly basic for a company with any customer management motion at all.
All in implementation I suppose, but typically pensions _must_ be fulfilled as they are a legal contract with the employees of the state.
If you take money out of a pension (typically illegal) or otherwise forgo payments, limit payouts etc, you must backfill those at a later date.
They're also treated very seriously by most state law, they're usually senior debt that takes precedence over pretty much any other debt a city/county owes. Really hard to get out from under.
Harnesses are quickly becoming critical components of the "model" itself imo. Not shocking to me at all that a company that spots a revenue opportunity is keeping its harness closed source.