To add to that, the current take that the US could just walk away from the conflict is incredibly naive - Iran will decide when this is over, and it won't be before the November elections. Before the US attacked, blocking the strait was only a potential, now Trump gave Iran the chance to prove that they are capable of doing it. And why on earth would Iran now give that away for free?
In Germany there was zero investment into the electric infrastructure, but the power allowed to flow from the panels into the grid is currently limited to 800W for this type of system. Seems to work fine. Larger systems still need a license.
They paid about $10B on inference and had about $10B in revenue in 2025. The users and numbers of zeroes on those numbers are not relevant. What is relevant is the ratio of those numbers. They apparently are not even profitable on inference, wich is the cheap part of the whole business.
And cost of inference tripled from $3B in 2024 to $10B in 2025, so cost of revenue linearly grows with number of users, i.e. it does not get cheaper.
Of course they bundle R&D with inference pricing, how else could you the recoup that investment.
The interesting question is: In what scenario do you see any of the players as being able to stop spending ungodly amounts for R&D and hardware without losing out to the competitors?
But only if you ignore all the other market participants, right? How can we ever reach a point where all the i.e. smaller Chinese competitors perpetually trailing behind SOTA with a ~9 month lag but at a tiny fraction of the cost stop existing?
I mean we just have to look at old discussions about Uber for the exact same arguments. Uber, after all these years, still is at a negative 10 % lifetime ROI , and that company doesn't even have to meaningfully invest in hardware.
IMO this will probably develop like the railroad boom in the first half of the 19th century: All the AI-only first movers like OpenAI and Anthropic will go bust, just like most railroad companies who laid the tracks, because they can't escape the training treadmill. But the tech itself will stay, and even become a meaningful productivity booster over the next decades.
I am also thinking long term where is the moat if it will inevitably lead to price competition? Like it's not a Microsoft product suite that your whole company is tied in multiple ways. LLMs can be quite easily swapped to another.
> there was a single brain region where we saw that higher cannabis use was actually associated with lower brain volume – the posterior cingulate, which is part of the limbic system and is implicated in processes like memory, learning, and emotion. That said, some research suggests smaller posterior cingulate volume is actually associated with better working memory, so it’s a little unclear what this means.
> The best large-scale work I’ve seen finds the average association between overall screen/social-media use and teen well-being is tiny
Can you share the source? The last time I looked the association was both clear and pretty strong, e.g. "There was a linear dose–response association of TSSM and risk of depression. The risk of depression increased by 13% (OR = 1.13, 95%CI: 1.09 to 1.17, p < 0.001) for each hour increase in social media use in adolescents." DOI:10.3390/ijerph19095164
> “Social media” lumps together very different things
HN does this, but the research is usually pretty clear in spelling out they mean FB, Insta, TikTok and so on.
> If you want a lever that actually changes incentives, go after business model & design
I too would like changes in that direction (mostly because adults are also affected negatively by social media), but keep in mind even a non-optimized, strictly chronological feed produces these negative effects, see keyword (and associated studies for) "upward social comparison", i.e. people are always more inclined to post about things that went well or are fun, and thus even a pure chronologically sorted feed produces a warped perception of normal social reality.
Thanks for the reply, will look into the links. And yes, full agreement, algorithmic ranking is a whole different dynamic, and has to be both researched and regulated differently than a dumb feed. Even the latter probably has levers moderating human reception, i.e. if we evolved in communities of less than 150 individuals, being able to routinely follow the curated lives of e.g. 500 people probobly has other effects than a feed of 50 actual RL friends.
People in the US need to become more aware of the dramatic impact this current administration has on the world. A paper in the Lancet, not exactly your average leftie rag, extrapolates the deaths resulting from the sudden USAID defunding to amount to about 14 million people. That's about 10x Pol Pot.
People around the world distancing themselves from these actions is hardly nationalism.
I'm sorry, my cognitive bias says 'Look! See! That proves my point at how great the US is/was.'
1 bad politician elected by a fraction of the population is enough to turn the world against us. Why bother with such altruism when a single election can turn everyone against us?
But it's not just one politician or just one election. The current guy was elected twice. His position on tariffs, NATO, and Greenland are not new. The movement supporting him is unlikely to disappear any time soon. From the outside, it doesn't look like one wrong step, but just part of the new normal.
It's also important to understand that those on the receiving end of the threats are not taking them lightly. No one's laughing. It's easy to understand the change in behaviour if you understand this.
Back to the European Alternatives stuff, I've been looking at the services I use and which ones might become unavailable if, let's say, the US takes Greenland. It has nothing to do with nationalism, I just don't want to be caught with my pants down.
It was a single election in 2016, and a few governors and senators and… oh it’s actually a pattern, a system that people feign to ignore when convenient for them.
> 1 bad politician elected by a fraction of the population is enough to turn the world against us. Why bother with such altruism when a single election can turn everyone against us?
I get your pain but are you expecting other countries just to take hit?
Should EU lift sanctions with Russia as well? You know "1 bad politician elected by a fraction of the population".
Farming already is heavily subsidized in every EU country. The whole sector only exists as is precisely because of the fears you point out. And that is perfectly fine, because statistically speaking it already is a rounding error both in share of employment and share of GDP (1.2% of EU GDP), only kept alive for the exact purpose you talk about.
So even if these lobby talking points would be true, and everything had to be 100% subsidized, that wouldn't be a problem.
reply