I don't understand this single dimensional view of the world where one country has to be the "winner" or "best". Historically that has almost never been the case except for military might, which wasn't necessarily correlated with technological advancement. Economic size does matter, but that's eventually going to track population size.
Why can't we have a multi polar world where different countries are good at different things, and no one has to dominate?
Such articles about Europe always seem to ignore skilled immigration and pretend it's not important. Europe sucks at attracting skilled immigrants compared to the US, or even Canada. And the contributions of immigrant founders is well documented.
I think attractiveness to skilled immigrants is also an indicator factor of social mobility and societal openness, which indirectly plays an important role for a successful entrepreneureal ecosystem. Europe is far behind in this regard.
What value does it provide over linking to the original source?
Any website that constantly asks me to login is spammy in by book. It's a for profit website that adds little value other than duplicating information from primary sources and occasionally mangling pdfs with redundant information to advertise themselves.
Well, the brain is a physical neural network, and evolution seems to have figured out how to generate a (somewhat) copiable model. I bet we could learn a trick or two from biology here.
I'm not clear on what advantage this architecture has over mamba/Griffin. They also have the linear scaling, better sequence parallelism and are competitive in performance with transformers.
It's a bit clickbaity and disingenuous to say "employees in Asia", when South Korea comes in at the bottom, and the difference between Singapore and France/UK and the rest is just a few percentage points on a small sample (What's the error on the sampling?)
But it seems to miss the point that capitalism requires cheap resources and also markets, and the European countries got these resources at huge concessions from the colonies which also provided a market for them. For example the British used Indian tax to buy cotton with tax collected from India, send it to the industrialised production centres (while deliberately destroying the traditional ones in India), and then sell it back to the Indians.
An easier way to understand it is imagine if the US got a 5% discount on Chinese imports -- would that help the US economy? British got close to a 90% discount (by force) on imports from India.
No, I think the extraction of resources from the colonies created a lot of wealth in Europe. In fact, a very strong argument could be made that that's where our (euro-centric) belief in abundance comes from.
Why the colonies were so adversely affected is a bit more complicated, and I think is more related to destruction of existing societal institutions and the installation of deliberately extractive institutions.
Very interesting and insightful article. But I always find it odd when historical articles omit the role of massive resource extraction from the colonies that provided the driving force in European economies to be able to convert all the ideas into actual reality.
Having lived in both the US and a couple of countries in the EU, one thing that struck me about living in the EU is how inwards looking and past facing the society is. And the general sense of European exceptionalism meant there was much less interest in attracting talent from outside the EU. I personally believe the latter is one of the major reasons for their decline. In many industries and in academia, not only don't they attract outside talent, but also lose a lot of European talent to the US and UK.