That’s why I don’t understand why Google’s stock has gone up so much recently. They already have maximum market share of digital ads; they can only lose share to competitors like OpenAI. The only way they can make more money is through paid subscriptions.
More details on the difference between the OpenAI and Anthropic contracts from one of the Under Secretaries of State:
>The axios article doesn’t have much detail and this is DoW’s decision, not mine. But if the contract defines the guardrails with reference to legal constraints (e.g. mass surveillance in contravention of specific authorities) rather than based on the purely subjective conditions included in Anthropic’s TOS, then yes. This, btw, was a compromise offered to—and rejected by—Anthropic.
> For the avoidance of doubt, the OpenAI - @DeptofWar contract flows from the touchstone of “all lawful use” that DoW has rightfully insisted upon & xAI agreed to. But as Sam explained, it references certain existing legal authorities and includes certain mutually agreed upon safety mechanisms. This, again, is a compromise that Anthropic was offered, and rejected.
> Even if the substantive issues are the same there is a huge difference between (1) memorializing specific safety concerns by reference to particular legal and policy authorities, which are products of our constitutional and political system, and (2) insisting upon a set of prudential constraints subject to the interpretation of a private company and CEO. As we have been saying, the question is fundamental—who decides these weighty questions? Approach (1), accepted by OAI, references laws and thus appropriately vests those questions in our democratic system. Approach (2) unacceptably vests those questions in a single unaccountable CEO who would usurp sovereign control of our most sensitive systems.
> It is a great day for both America’s national security and AI leadership that two of our leading labs, OAI and xAI have reached the patriotic and correct answer here
The old science fairs actually did find real geniuses. Many kids who placed highly in the Westinghouse Science Talent Search ended up winning Nobel Prizes later in life.
The modern ones are sadly just another checkbox for college admissions, full of cheaters gaming the metrics.
They haven't really added anything to Office since 2013, the last pre-subscription version. There were massive changes between Office 98 and 2013, including entirely new programs like OneNote. They just found a way to get their customers to rebuy the same product every year.
Same thing happened with Adobe and CS6; feature development slowed to a crawl after the change to a subscription.
Only because you chose to walk through the port instead of through town. Google Maps' walking route is shorter than the route that goes through that road, entirely on sidewalks, and only requires crossing one road wider than one car lane per direction (and said road has a signalized crosswalk). There is also a pedestrian bridge across that road that could be used instead, but Google didn't pick it, likely because it connects with "private" property (the convention center's path).
The hardware was good but nothing that an iPad doesn’t have nowadays. It was revolutionary for the time with the detachable keyboard and trackpad and Wacom-like pen. The software was what made it an amazing device though.
In addition to being able to run any regular Windows application, it had the best and most intuitive feeling UX of any tablet in history. Amongst many other features, window management was gesture controlled and Internet Explorer had an alternate UI that moved the tabs to the bottom of the screen to make them easier to reach.
Sadly, Windows 10 removed all the good parts of Windows tablet mode, but its ideas were so good that Apple is still slowly copying bits of its interface for the iPad to this day.
Household income is always compared including all households; you can't exclude people who don't work as they are people in your country and how they live is important. No matter what income statistic you pick, on average, Americans earn significantly more than Europeans, even after taking benefits into account.
It is not illegal to build in a European style in most of the country; we have entire areas built in a similar style. Zoning is also not a fixed thing in the US; it is very common for zoning rules to change as the area grows. Most of the country is not the San Francisco Bay Area. Contrary to popular online belief, only 19% of Americans want to live in dense cities, so our cities actually mostly match people's preferences. Zoning and land use rules make it illegal to build American style cities in much of Europe as well, so far all you know, most Europeans would like American-style living they were allowed to have it. Here's a ridiculous example of some of your continent's NIMBYs not allowing a rural landowner to open a small restaurant [1]; the same sort of people are also opposed to building any form of suburban housing.
Your American income number is for individuals, but your British number is household income, not individual (your source is confusing, but the official government site states that the median household income is £29,900 [1]). The US has a PPP adjusted median individual disposable income of $42,800; the UK has a PPP adjusted median individual disposable income of $25,738 [2]. These numbers are after all taxes and benefits are paid. Someone earning the median income in the US has health insurance through their employer; the average premium for a single individual is $106/month and the average premium for a family is $466/mo [3]. So that brings our median income for a single earner family down from ~$43k to around ~$37k, which is still far ahead of our median Brit (though it's likely the single earner with a family is earning closer to the household income, not the median income of all workers, which affects the numbers for both countries). And this is comparing the entire US to a richer part of Europe! If we were to use the median PPP adjusted individual income for the entire European Union (plus UK), it'd be even worse as the US is weighed down by its poor regions but the poor regions of Europe are being excluded. Sorry, but Europeans are a lot poorer than Americans, and your governments spread lots of propaganda to prevent you from realizing it. The European argument for social service benefits outweighing lower wages only applies for the poor; for anyone middle class or above the increase in wages is greater than the decrease in services. You can talk about inequality all you want, but when comparing the lifestyles of the median person that is irrelevant.
The typical American does not see *any* benefit to giving up their car and house. Every single benefit like < 10 minute travel time is already a reality (because what matters is how long it takes to run an errand, not how it is run), but they'd have to live in a smaller house. They are a short drive already from all the activities they could ever want and are friends with all of their neighbors. Their kids can play in the street safely as there might be a dozen cars a day traveling down their street, most of which belong to people who live there. There is no need to though, because everyone has a yard to play in. You admitted that most of your friends could not set up a shop if they wanted to, and the ones who do have them live on the outskirts of the city and have to add 20 minutes to every trip (unless they drive). For the typical middle class American, increasing density offers *no* benefit as literally everything you describe is either something they already have or something irrelevant, but it has significant downsides.
If all you talk to are internet urbanists and tech people living in the Bay Area, you are *not* getting an accurate picture of how the average American lives. This is why urban activists (and Europeans who have pride for their hometowns) are constantly bewildered as to why anyone resists them and think it's because people just don't understand the benefits or are brainwashed by car companies, not that they've heard your arguments before or visited your ideal areas and decided that they just don't want to live in an area like that. Urban activist types tend not to be the type of person who would have a home shop in the first place or have any hobbies that require space and they have fewer (if any) children. They are a vocal minority in the US: only 19% of Americans want to live in a dense urban area [4].
I don't think you realize just how much higher the median income is in the US and how much space the typical family has.
A homeowner who earns middle class wages would have the space for a home lab/shop (without renting additional space) and would be able to pay a couple thousand dollars for their son's hobby. The stereotypical middle-class soccer mom spends more than that a year on her kid's activities. This is representative of at least the top 50% of American earners, not just the top 5-10%. This kid's father is the owner of a small sheet metal fabrication shop and he probably does decently well for himself but most of his wealth is likely the value of his business.
On posts advocating for density on HN, I often see people wondering why Americans resist densification because the benefits of a walkable city are so immense. Stuff like this and your belief that having a home electronics fabrication shop is out of reach for all but the rich (and the fact that most Americans can already do nearly any errand with less than 15 minutes of travel) are some of the reasons why. It is not that unusual for a middle class homeowner to have a home shop, though normally the equipment in them is something like a table saw or a mid-20th century manual milling machine, not a homebuilt photolithography machine and an old refurbished SEM. People who have them either use their garages (either an extra bay if they have a two/three car garage and only one/two cars or they use the entire garage and park their cars in the driveway or on the street) or they use a shed placed in their yard. Ever wondered where the stories of people starting companies in their garages come from?
To a middle-class American not living in a super high cost of living area this kid's story is something that they could have done had they had parents who trusted them and if they had the motivation and inclination to do it. The people complaining about that this kid being "privileged" are ignorant of how much of America lives and/or are jealous that they weren't able to do what he did when they were younger.
I think what he is arguing is that someone with a negative attitude ("he can only do that because he's rich!") won't accomplish anything even if they were granted unlimited funding because they are focused on coming up with excuses instead of thinking about what they can do. There are plenty of poor people in third-world countries who have far less than the original commentator (who presumably lives in the first world) who have built very impressive things, especially considering the resources they have available. It is an attitude problem, not a financial one.