wqaatwt

> country given to some people by the UK after second world war.

Very begrudgingly.. They didn’t even allow Jewish refugees fleeing the Holocaust to enter Palestine during the war since Britain didn’t want to agitate the local Arab population. There was no grand design Britain had no clear policy or real idea what they were trying to accomplish there so they were just happy to get rid of the territory asap and make it someone else’s problem.

LLMs are designed to imitate humans not compilers. Hardly anyone is capable of writing modern optimized Assembly code by hand outside of a few snippets here and there (not in a reasonable amount of time at least)

I promise you its not.

To be fair internet (or rather shovelware websites like Medium) were already flooded by crap articles based on a set of templates. Of course the issue is that LLMs are actually better than the robot-humans who used to write them so now it takes more time until you figure whether it’s worth reading or not..

You are reading it wrong. Ask your LLM to read and summarize based on your style preferences. Better yet don’t read anything at all, just tell your agent to convert it to a skill file for it’s future reference..

No, why would you say I did that? Also if everyone ever referencing any historical event ever would have to explicitly list and condemn every single thing they think was wrong it would become rather verbose and boring to read. Overall the crusaders were worse than some violent conquerors and better than others.

It was kind of problem that by the time Romans really got into suppressing all kinds of “heresies” and imposing Orthodoxy across the empire. Since most in their Middle Eastern provinces and Egypt weren’t Orthodox Catholic most locals didn’t really bother that much fighting for them since the Muslims at the time just seemed like another Christian sect just with a more hands off attitude to government and possibly lower taxes.

England has a reasonably fair system where tuition fees are fixed and the loan functions more of like an additional tax only for university graduates (i.e. min income limit, low interest, etc.)

As I said, in relative terms..

> Catholic church left pagans to their own devices?

It varied, although generally the Catholic church was fairly open at integrating or even occasionally tolerating pagan practices or providing alternative options to people used to more polytheistic religions. Like the whole saint worshipping (“venerating”) thing. Often (with some exceptions) pagans found conversion fairly easy since they could just map their gods to equivalent Christian saints continue worshipping them. Basically every converted pagan society had a multi-generationa transition period.

Then you had stuff lime praying to magical corpses or body parts, so their previous owners could perform miracles. With some exceptions it has generally been a highly flexible religion before the reformation.

Islam is much more rigid about following the rules and stuff like idol worship (as a consequence they brought back visual arts back to the stone ages..)

That varied wildly. Generally more of an exception that the rule but in the worst cases like under the Almohad’s you did have Jewish or even less extremist Muslim refugees fleeing to the more tolerant (at the time) Christian kingdoms.

Well yes it’s relative. However the Church in the 1400s to 1600s or so was generally very permissive of scientific debate and not strictly dogmatic. See Galileo’s story, the issue is that when they rejected something (based on a reasonably valid scientific process albeit based on flawed evidence available at the time) that was kind of it and continued to challenging the consensus got you into some deep trouble (with a few exceptions).

One interesting thing is that in the 1400s open debate and heterodoxy was generally tolerated or even accepted IF you did it in Latin and only inside the “international scholar network” that existed at the time and didn’t go around preaching your ideas to peasants and such.

I’m certainly not implying that it was in any way good or let alone perfect in absolute terms, just that it.

> same reasons power and money.

That’s highly reductive

Well yes it highly varied. However Romans were generally more motivated by plunder and subsequent economic exploitation. To an extent they didn’t really suppress local cultural practices or imposed forced assimilation in cases where it didn’t conflict with that and even often allowed alternative power structures to exist. Assimilation largely happened over time and was mostly voluntary. To be fair gradual voluntary conversion to Islam to enhance your social/economic status was the main mechanism in the Muslim empires as well. However in Rome the transition wasn’t as binary and “multiculturalism” was much more tolerated. Also Romans were way more open to integrating and assimilating foreign cultures and practices (which is why the Roman Empire eventually turned into a “Greek Empire”) what being a “Roman” meant was way more malleable and flexible than being a Muslim.

> Crusades

Many of the regions they invaded were still (or until quite recently) majority Christian. After all initially it was a defensive relief expedition organized by the pope and the Byzantine emperor to free the territories the empire lost in Anatolia very recently. Of course it was massively more successful than anyone anticipated and they just kept on going and then the whole thing got “slightly” out of hand..

But yes, as I said there were some huge exceptions. However early on the way Christianity spread was fundamentally different to Islam. It was usually not through violent conquest but bottom up.

European imperialism was quite mixed as well. Christianity played a huge part in the Spanish conquests of the Americas. Much less so in British India and other similar places.

To be fair in addition to the uncountable horrible things it did or took part in the Catholic church did build the foundations that allowed the concepts of modern scientific thought to develop. No other religion did that.

The Roman/Byzantine empire was pretty much destroyed by Muslims, though. Its a but like thanking the Franks/Goths/etc. for preserving Roman cultural identity in Western Europe by preserving some of their texts..

To be fair for the most part Christianity didn’t spread top down through violent conquest (obviously with some huge exceptions) at least in the Middle East and surrounding regions. Also it’s historically better at integrating local cultural practices and languages.

Unlike Islam which which usually wiped out local cultural and linguistic identities (during the periods of Arab conquests, that shifted quite a but later on of course)

It is somewhat different. Romans or Greeks didn’t really violently impose their culture, religion and language to a comparable degree. Without the Islamic invasions Egyptian would likely still be speaking Coptic these days.

To be fair if you are an English speaker and move to medium/lower CoL central/eastern/southern European country you will mostly have the same concerns and will realistically have to pay commercial prices for the most part.

How many countries can claim the achievement of developing nuclear weapons? Does that make North Korea somehow an inherently more successful country than Germany?

Spending money on a space program while hundreds of millions of your citizens are living in extreme poverty is obscene (unless it provides significant economic value)

It’s other oligarchs using regular people to undercut their competitors while offloading most of the risk to those regular people, though.

Without the intention of personally profiting from breaking these laws. Which is what these people are doing.

If they released this information publicly then you might have a point.

Short to medium term yes. However there are arguments to be made that this would significantly stifle innovation longterm.

Statistically yes but we need to look at the actual distribution and I doubt it’s just a handful of outliers.

> EU have free healthcare and education

They are not free, the costs are deducted from the gross income listed above. Not that fundamentally different than employers paying for your health insurance (besides the system being way more efficient etc.)

> the first country to reach Mars on its first attempt

Well doing it decades later than others did help with that.

Or LLMs become a commodity if open models are ever good enough for > 95% of use cases. The product if fundamentally different than tv-shows or movies since its so interchangeable.

Then the cost would end up being deprecation + electric + some low operating margin (i.e. what non SOTA models cost on OpenRouter)

When they release a model that’s generally considered superior to Opus/Fable and/or start running out of money.

You can’t calculate what that cost is though regardless. If the gross margin is positive you can’t confidently challenge their longterm growth projections however optimistic or unrealistic they are.

Well if their gross margins are positive (I really doubt they aren’t) there isn’t much of a case to be made. You can expect meaningful R&D and capital investments to pay off short term and you can’t make any meaningful projections either to determine if they are dumping or not.

Yet… VS code somehow became the most popular IDE that happens to be generally viewed favorably by most of its users.

I personally hate it due to various reasons but I don’t feel like the Electron part is the issue (Java based Jetbrains IDEs generally seem way more bloated)