WhrRTheBaboons
But then it would not be an authentic Warsaw experience!
My experience with it is mostly using it against an actual, academic source, where I can easily tell if it starts making things up. I wouldn't rely on it for anything that I can't confirm myself.
Currently Solar PV output is incredibly unbalancing but hopefully batteries will offset that in the coming years
h3.gg for anyone interested
it worked for the big short guys because the knew exactly when it was going to go bust
if these hold a year after an IPO then we can talk.
real-life, unregulated capitalism lends itself to exactly what you described
Contrast that to US being happy with everyone eating each other alive until all but one company is left standing and can now dictate the prices and enshittify the product to pay back their VC loans.
Edit: So is #7 (and almost #8), #9, 10, 11, 12 are identical as well
The unfortunate truth behind at least the solar PV boom in China is that it's driven in large part by the exploitation of Uyghurs in the Xinjiang region. One of the reasons they can sustain the pace they're going at is because while nowadays PV modules exports increasingly gravitate towards offshore fabs (Vietnam, Malaysia), domestically all the biggest PV players make full use of modern slavery within Xinjiang's re-education camps.
more on the topic: https://www.shu.ac.uk/-/media/home/research/helena-kennedy-c...
It might be a minor nitpick, but that part is just not how the macroeconomic principle works. Abundance of a good/service within a country is irrelevant to the concept of a comparative advantage - this is counter-intuitive but but that was David Ricardo's entire point. It's not about whether production is more efficient domestically, it's whether comparative allocation of resources between multiple countries is more efficient by specialization within the different goods.
Even if you can produce "good 1" cheaper in Country A vs Country B, if Country A can instead produce "good 2" that Country B cannot, it's better for Country A to produce "good 2" domestically and import "good 1".
Now, I still agree with the original notion. It's unnecessarily risky to use services from "democratically-challenged" nations (especially imperialist ones), when safer options are available. But there's no need to twist macro 101 concepts to justify that view. Modern trade policy takes more into account than basic market efficiency.
It's very easy to say that it shouldn't have to be the case with the hindsight of GA being successfully used for centuries.
I would be much more interested in an example of a drug/medical procedure/research that currently is having to jump through such hurdles that people think should be treated as permissively as GA or the theoretical 'cancer cure', despite there not yet being any evidence of its long term effects - as would be the case with a hypothetical AI 'cancer cure' that's not understood by medical professionals.
Personally I can see the arguments for both sides of the coin, but I find GA to be a bad example.
Do you think people just naturally become more aware of immoral things? Even if you assume better education is the single reason, that's something that's very much not a given, and is in fact constantly being attacked by people who benefit from it not being guaranteed.
When you're fighting against billionaires who want to act against your best interest, do you believe you just need to appeal to people's morality and it's an easy win? Sorry to say it doesn't work like that, though it'd be wonderful if it did. People's minds are swayed easier by financial interests than they are by moral value. That's the impact of a capitalist system allowing levels of inequality putting even people's livelihood in danger.
Status quo is much easier to defend than it is to disrupt, regardless of how immoral it is in the first place. And disruption needs drastic measures to be successful when fighting an asymmetrical war of resources.
in any case, pretty much all of those sites look like boilerplate vibe-coded startup templates.
Amazon won't care because it's peanuts for them. Sellers will care and will pay amazon more in ad revenue than it will cost in potential sales.
do you want me to run my own study of personal home ownership or something? lol
It's citing a wikipedia article, which itself has been flagged for needing a better source [0]. The wikipedia in turn cites Statista [1], which claims this is "original data" that cannot be verified without a paid account.
Additionally, the number itself seems to actually be taken from Eurostat (an actual source) [2], which helpfully defines what they mean as the 87% for Poland. Surprise, surprise, it's not actually "87% of Poles own a house". It's "87% of Poles live in households owning or renting their home". That's also conveniently missing from another headline-grabbing numbers like "16% share of housing costs to total disposable income", which refers to the total income of the entire household.
And if you want to delve deeper as for why these numbers might be what they are, you have to consider the following too:
Poland has Europe's 2nd highest share (>50%) of adults living with in their parents' home [3], with 3rd lowest average number of rooms per person [2], 2nd highest household size (number of people) [2], with one third of people living in overcrowded homes (3rd highest in Europe, vs the EU average of 16%)[2].
All this being said, I don't doubt for a second that US is much worse in this regard.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owner-occupancy#International_...
[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/246355/home-ownership-ra...
[2] https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/interactive-publications/h...
[3] https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/ilc_lvps09/de...
Do you refuse to believe nearly 100% of written content isn't made by AI? Was your comment?
I struggle to imagine thinking that no one does things themselves, for fun. What a nihilistic view.
Because of the low prices lol.
>Altman continued touting OpenAI’s commitment to safety, especially when potential recruits were within earshot. In late 2022, four computer scientists published a paper motivated in part by concerns about “deceptive alignment,” in which sufficiently advanced models might pretend to behave well during testing and then, once deployed, pursue their own goals. (It’s one of several A.I. scenarios that sound like science fiction—but, under certain experimental conditions, it’s already happening.) Weeks after the paper was published, one of its authors, a Ph.D. student at the University of California, Berkeley, got an e-mail from Altman, who said that he was increasingly worried about the threat of unaligned A.I. He added that he was thinking of committing a billion dollars to the issue, which many A.I. experts considered the most important unsolved problem in the world, potentially by endowing a prize to incentivize researchers around the world to study it. Although the graduate student had “heard vague rumors about Sam being slippery,” he told us, Altman’s show of commitment won him over. He took an academic leave to join OpenAI.
But, in the course of several meetings in the spring of 2023, Altman seemed to waver. He stopped talking about endowing a prize. Instead, he advocated for establishing an in-house “superalignment team.” An official announcement, referring to the company’s reserves of computing power, pledged that the team would get “20% of the compute we’ve secured to date”—a resource potentially worth more than a billion dollars. The effort was necessary, according to the announcement, because, if alignment remained unsolved, A.G.I. might “lead to the disempowerment of humanity or even human extinction.” Jan Leike, who was appointed to lead the team with Sutskever, told us, “It was a pretty effective retention tool.”
The twenty-per-cent commitment evaporated, however. Four people who worked on or closely with the team said that the actual resources were between one and two per cent of the company’s compute. Furthermore, a researcher on the team said, “most of the superalignment compute was actually on the oldest cluster with the worst chips.” The researchers believed that superior hardware was being reserved for profit-generating activities. (OpenAI disputes this.) Leike complained to Murati, then the company’s chief technology officer, but she told him to stop pressing the point—the commitment had never been realistic.
per https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2026/04/13/sam-altman-may...