wasfgwp
It would perhaps be slightly interesting if the prompt was run 100 times for each model. I doubt the pelicans would look identical.
I think at this point comparing raw token pricing is often apples to oranges.
Only true if you zoom out. If you actually looked the data the 1800s had wild and constant swings year to year, they just evened out during the Long Depression (i.e. the first Great Depression) by the end of the century.
Constrained monetary supply also leads to constant boom and bust cycles in a non static economy.
There is nothing rational about this, he’s bullying Canada because he has much more leverage over it than he has over China and Europe. Albeit he messed up the global oil supply to fuck with both of them ( and bailed out the Russian economy from collapse while he was at it) or maybe he’s just cluelessly blundered into it, who knows)
https://www.lb.lt/en/news/banking-licence-granted-to-revolut...
edit: Comment no longer makes much sense after the one above was edited
They had an EU license in Lithuania for years.
A lot? I mean they were on the same level or above in the early 2000s.
Ariane was sort of the SpaceX of the 80s by commercializing and significantly decreasing the cost of space launches.
> from the Germans on how to build an empire
Yeah.. the German economy is in a remarkably great state these days.
They had that 20 years ago? Since then the rich asset owners have been accumulating a bigger share of the pie in the EU as well, it’s just marginally less pronounced because there is less wealth to go about in the EU due to the multi-decade long stagnation (outside Eastern Europe and a handful of other countries). On the whole I find it extremely hard to view this as a positive without a huge amount of wishful thinking.
People in the EU need to start thinking about how to improve things rather than exclusively focusing on holding onto what they already have (which is slowly turning into scraps..). To a large extent the old EU countries just froze in time after the GFC.
The tactical situation in Taiwan is very different though. I think it would come down more to what’s happening in the air since the stalemate in Ukraine is in large because the Russian airforce is almost completely neutralized and can only be used to launch cruise missiles from a safe distance. I doubt China would invade unless they feel they can somehow achieve at least temporary air superiority and achieve their other objectives during that period.
Air defenses are probably much more important than drones overall.
Last time used faced a conventional military that could actually challenge it was in Korea.
It won’t have complete areal superiority or entire division surrendering after running into contact with US forces like they in Iraq. “Shock and awe” of course can be very effective just probably not against China. Even now US is running out of materiel against Iran and can’t really sustain a prolonged intense conflict while being able to protect its gulf allies from ballistic missiles and drones.
That was an occupation and a low intensity “pacification” mission. Waging a prolonged war against a military peer on the other side of the continent is a bit more problematic (considering that US is/was on the brink of running out of advanced weaponry in Iran despite having aerial superiority which they won’t over Taiwan, Japan would have to get involved as well cause otherwise US would have to entirely rely on the fragile carrier fleet).
Using tactical nukes (even regardless of the extreme geopolitical downsides that might bring) wouldn’t necessarily give a great tactical advantage either, unless they are willing to do that over Taiwan itself to destroy the landing forces).
It’s not about blame, the point of anti trust and competition laws is just that, maximize competition and consumer surplus. Yes that inherently penalizes the most successful companies we collectively as a society judged that to be a fair bargain.
> The culprit certainly isn't Apple. They aren't a bank.
Sure, it’s easier to go after Apple not banks, though.
> have a great variety of devices to choose from
Physical hardware sure. Effectively there is no choice when it comes to software though.
> device they can get at whatever price they deem reasonable and affordable
Sure, but again physical hardware is not whats being discussed here. All major device manufacturers make it either were hard or impossible to install alternative operating systems (especially that got much worse for Android devices over the years).
> can't figure out how to make money without depending on Apple? A
When it comes to certain sectors that’s true. Or rather you are supposed to pay a very significant proportion of your revenue as rent to Apple to for very little in return (Apple benefits almost as much from third party developers as developers do from Apple).
> Apple has no unfair advantage against the competition, except for the incompetence of said competition
Yeah, that how most monopolies work. They are just outright better than their competition until they are in a dominant position and can get a higher proportion of the pie because they ran all the competitors out of business. That’s exactly when regulators should intervene to make the market more efficient.
Based on empirical evidence free/efficient markets can almost never exist without regulation.
The average Android user is almost worthless economically compared to the average iPhone user. If you calculate the market share based on revenue and not total users Apple has a much bigger proportion of the pie than the raw user base would suggest.
> Which is an easy thing for banks to do.
The victim in this case are the consumers, not banks.
Overall the smartphone OS market is a not very competitive oligopoly, the government’s job is to make sure that markets are competitive.
> around and point fingers at Apple for being successful. They made their own bed.
To get into the position where you can abuse your position in the market you have to do something right, certainly. That doesn’t mean you should be allowed to do that in perpetuity.