I've been running a small game dev studio for ~20 years, and the one change I think must be made, is to ban the usage of "buy" when it comes to games. Games are licensed, not bought, and that should be crystal clear to those who are paying.
Most of the games people play runs using proprietary software and/or licenses, and often on very specific hardware, with game features that makes sense for the amount of players the game has. Requiring that people should be able to play such games if the company stops running it would completely change and limit how games are developed, and in many cases require a completely different version of the game to be co-developed in case people stop playing it. It would with 100 % certainty result in slower development, fewer games, and worse games.
I do of course think that developers should try to make games playable without the company being involved, within reason. Some games that do not have licensing issues or complicated server backends as a requirement could be made available without too much work. But for things like e.g. MMORPGs it's nearly impossible. If your ever developed bigger software systems you know how many moving parts are involved, so just imagine the difficulty of making it work on consumer machines...
A common extreme misconception is that inference is expensive and that providers are loosing a lot of money. Inference is extremely lucrative and profitable.
But you are talking about Europe. If the US and Europe were to cut all ties they would both face some serious consequences, and the US wouldn't be able to do anything about that, not strategically or military. The US need trust in order to function, and attacking would loose them all trust globally, making it much much more severe than anything any other nations would struggle with.
Hey! We Norwegians have on average more ownership in US tech companies than Americans!
Everything is going according to plan. When we have majority, we'll move the companies to Norway, but don't tell anyone, this is supposed to be a secret. /s
To be fair, it would be a bigger issue for the US. No country is more economically dependant on the rest of the world than the US. The US is living on the USD, and if others stop using it the US would have to do extreme cuts on everything.
Cause I'm not trying to fool you in order to make money off you, and it should not be hard to understand that it is impossible to create a usable reply to a text someone sends you if you can't see the text.
The proper way to implement it is to issue digital IDs and use ZK proofs to verify the age. That way the service doesn't know anything other that the fact that you have an official digital ID and that you are at least a certain age. The ID issuer does not need to be involved in anything other than issuing the ID, making it perfect when it comes to privacy, while still fulfilling the goal of having an age limit.
If this is built on open standards, so that anyone can use it for free, it would be a big positive step forward for everyone.
A dark, but not totally unfair take: It makes it easier for Apple to take payment for the models others provide, and even allows Apple, if they want to, to use the data to build a dataset for training their own models based on how users use third party models. It's only on Apple devices this API is used, so they split up the market by not letting developers use the same system if they want things to work on iOS, locking users even more in.
No reasonable person relies on Apple's statements as facts. That said by Apple's laywers, and is especially true here. Apple can access the data if they want, and so can Google and Nvidia.
> The company reiterated that Apple Intelligence relies on on-device processing and Private Cloud Compute, with a promise that user data is only used to execute the immediate request and is not accessible to Apple or third parties. Apple added that outside experts can verify those privacy guarantees "at any time."
Yes, the "Apple needs to look at your data to do this, but we don't have any way to look at the data if we wanted to". That's impossible, unless they open souce iOS and let people take control over their devices, and let people self host inference, so people can check that there is no network traffic. If it is as they say, they could let people host it without any downsides.
Hacker news doesn't generate much traffic, despite what people are saying.
The host here has a limit of 160000 files served each day. That is extremely low. If the site has an icon, css, a js file and a few images it's 10 files each visit. That's will limit it to 16k visits/day. If there are more files loaded it might just handle a few thousand visits, and they have received more than that from HN now.
While Google does a good job with language support in their models, GPT-5.5 can't write proper Norwegian. It's even making up words that does not exist.
Considering the fact that the US is complaining about Norway putting too much money into the US market, imagine what would happen if all that money was spent in Norway. It would be chaos.
Noctua wants their fans to last for many years, spinning at 2K rpm, with heat.
Being able to produce something with lower tolerance is one thing. Making it work long term at ~10 m/s and ~200G is another thing. Have you ever been in a car that brakes really hard? You'll move. Now, multiply that force by 100 and you'll get around what the fans must sustain over time.
A simple LAMP stack can give you <1ms page loads for most applications. Even 15 years ago you could serve over 100k/rps of lightweight PHP pages from a low end server.
Just to point it out, Cursor has not made any good models themselves. Composer 2 is Kimi K2.5, and they tried to pass it as their own until people noticed that the api specified it as Kimi.
Most of the games people play runs using proprietary software and/or licenses, and often on very specific hardware, with game features that makes sense for the amount of players the game has. Requiring that people should be able to play such games if the company stops running it would completely change and limit how games are developed, and in many cases require a completely different version of the game to be co-developed in case people stop playing it. It would with 100 % certainty result in slower development, fewer games, and worse games.
I do of course think that developers should try to make games playable without the company being involved, within reason. Some games that do not have licensing issues or complicated server backends as a requirement could be made available without too much work. But for things like e.g. MMORPGs it's nearly impossible. If your ever developed bigger software systems you know how many moving parts are involved, so just imagine the difficulty of making it work on consumer machines...