At a state level it's a pretty good defensive strategy against the American AI industry, as a whole, gaining a monopolistic advantage. This prevents the US from using this as a coercive leverage through things such as tarrifs, export bans etc.
In a world, that's increasingly dependant on the AI "opium" that the US is dealing, it's conceivable that the current administration could try to sabotage something like, say Chinese-European relationships, by threatening to cut access to Anthropic or OpenAI products for Europeans, if China cosies up to the EU.
The disadvantage of trying to use these leverages, is that once the genie's out of the bottle, the other party will divert their focus quickly, so it only works if the US truly has a choke-hold on frontier AI. Otherwise, you just scared the other party into never trusting American frontier AI ever, and you didn't even truly hurt them, because they already have a quick fix from China.
Unfortunately behind a paywall, but there's an article in the previous issue of Foreign Affairs about how the Trump administration has fumbled this coercion strategy repeatedly because they overestimated their advantage in different markets (tariffs on Canada, Iran, etc) and what an actually effective strategy can look like https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united-states/how-fight-econo...
tl; dr: You need to have a monopoly, the enemy should not bounce back quickly, you shouldn't cripple your own economy doing it.
AI may just be the next economic offensive the Trump administration fumbles, because China planned ahead by incentivising development of close-second alternatives to their frontier models.
While consumer electronics companies have gone for wireless earbuds, the hi-fi, in ear monitor market is very much alive. Not to mention also relatively affordable these days.
That works under the assumption of the "wisdom of the markets", and we assume VC possesses that wisdom, but laid bare it's just as vulnerable to cronyism as any other institution.
I have the same feeling about the whole discussion. I know that colloquially we use terms like "protein" to refer to dietary protein rather than the class of mollecules.
But the way "peptide" is used by all the bro/gal-science influencers that push them online makes it blatantly obvious that they have next to no idea what they're talking about.
Roguelike/lites are is of the most popular genres of indie games nowadays. One of it's main characteristics is randomization and procedural generation.
There's also a whole, albeit niche, board game genera of so called 18xx game (eg. 1889 Shikoku) that deal with the economic aspects of 19th century railroads.
Usually dry as sand, but some of the heaviest games out there in terms of complexity.
Nice. I've also been doing this for a while too. I don't like to depend on a lot of addons, so I find the ublock only implementation of it quite elegant and fast. I also try to use filters nowadays to block other types of dark patterns (eg. Infinite scroll recommendations). It's surprising how much you can de-enshittify the modern corporate internet by just blocking tags with some css path filters.
And not to mention that a C compiler is something we have literally 50 years worth of code for. I still seriously doubt the ability of LLMs to tackle truly new problems.
Maybe I should have been more explicit that here "variance explained by" is used quite literally with the meaning it has in statistical modeling. I get that you meant it in a "correlation not causation" way, but "correlation" in the context of statistics is a loaded term. Interpretability of heritability is difficult in general. Most people struggle with it. But if it truly were 100% (rarely is if ever) it would imply causation solely from genetic factors. Causation from both genetics and environment is always there - heritability just seeks to formalize the measure of proportion.
In (quantitative) genetics literature, heritability is usually defined (simplifying a bit) as the proportion of variance of a trait (lifespan, height, etc), in a population, that can be explained by genetics. The rest, by environmental factors, or error.
If height were a 100% heritability means that all differences in height between individuals would be explainable by genetics.
Open book exams are not a new thing and I've often had them for STEM disciplines (maths and biology). Depending on the subject, you will often fail those unless you had a good prior understanding of the material.
If you can pass an exam just by googling something, it means you're just testing rote-memorization rather, and maybe a better design is needed where synthesis and critical thinking skills are evaluated more actively.
I'm not very familiar with the ecosystem, but I have used this on an RPi4 to run some games through wine.
I'm wondering, how's the landscape nowadays. Is this the leading project for x86 compatibility on ARM? With the rising popularity of the architecture for consumer platforms, I'd guess companies like Valve would be interested in investing in these sort of translation layers.
In a world, that's increasingly dependant on the AI "opium" that the US is dealing, it's conceivable that the current administration could try to sabotage something like, say Chinese-European relationships, by threatening to cut access to Anthropic or OpenAI products for Europeans, if China cosies up to the EU.
The disadvantage of trying to use these leverages, is that once the genie's out of the bottle, the other party will divert their focus quickly, so it only works if the US truly has a choke-hold on frontier AI. Otherwise, you just scared the other party into never trusting American frontier AI ever, and you didn't even truly hurt them, because they already have a quick fix from China.
Unfortunately behind a paywall, but there's an article in the previous issue of Foreign Affairs about how the Trump administration has fumbled this coercion strategy repeatedly because they overestimated their advantage in different markets (tariffs on Canada, Iran, etc) and what an actually effective strategy can look like https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united-states/how-fight-econo...
tl; dr: You need to have a monopoly, the enemy should not bounce back quickly, you shouldn't cripple your own economy doing it.
AI may just be the next economic offensive the Trump administration fumbles, because China planned ahead by incentivising development of close-second alternatives to their frontier models.