While true, isn't that a rich life benefit in general? E.g. Brits can choose (important hat they have options) to trade some time to get even cheaper and just as good healthcare services compared to Mississippians who don't have such an option at all. So an aggregated quality of life for Brits is even higher because of that.
So the same quality and reach of the public transit in rural Japan and rural USA? The same percentage of net income spent on the similar healthcare procedures in rural Japan and rural USA? The same quality and percentage of net income spent on the education in rural Japan and rural USA? I have doubts.
I live in a pretty rural, red small town USA and we have a great bus system. Disabled/elderly/sick can even call and be picked up in front of their home. Our library system is expanding in size and scope (they do a heritage seedbank now). Schools are tough to fund because the feds own most of the land and even though the deal was we lost tax revenue because federal land but that was made up for in logging/mining revenue the feds just stopped giving permits and screwed our community out of the jobs/promised revenue. Rural America isn't all the hellscape the internet pretends it is.
Where is this? Because I live in an area with what is considered one of the best public transit systems in the US and even then the bus system is iffy at the edges of the metro area. I am curious to see your bus schedule.
Corporate "hackatons" are often a mess. We have anything from a truly novel ideas clearly invented right at the hackaton (as was originally intended) which are rough and very unpolished and buggy or even broken, to teams brazenly bringing up developments which clearly were ongoing for months, not even hiding that and showing weeks or months of test and dev results in the eventual presentation. The latter teams won of course every time. I kinda get the business benefits, but the spirit of the contest goes out of the window.
Oh, and don't get me started on the fact that a lot of developers get two relaxed fun days while with catering, networking and basically paid for self-improvement workdays, while QA, supports and other teams are expected to work as usual AND cheer for those participating and watch presentations (thankfully that last is optional).
> but the spirit of the contest goes out of the window.
"-thons" aren't contests, at least not in the traditional sense, they are activities where participants test the limits of their endurance. A marathon, for example, allows runners to see how far they can push themselves running. Likewise, a hackathon gives a place for one to see how far they can push themselves to create something over a short amount of time, beyond what would normally be possible, and beyond what would be sustainable in an everyday setting. I suppose you could argue that it is contest with yourself, but calling that a contest is atypical.
You are right to call out that few people want to push themselves to their limits for a corporate event, so corporate entities have turned to contests instead to try and find something that does appeal, but a contest, no matter how it is conducted, is outside of the spirit of a hackathon.
Checks and balances concern constraints on government power. Whether OpenAI's structure complies with the law is a question of regulation, not checks and balances.
It's not a question of regulation, but a question of enforcing said regulation and a question of enforcing a lawful process which follows a breach of a regulation. Which is exactly a spirit of the phrase "checks and balances". It means that if one branch breaks law, then the other branch enforces a compliance with laws/regulations. Of even inside the same branch, if a temporary elected doofus in charge is breaking the law, then people even lower in hierarchy will enforce normal branch functioning. Which in practice was super easy to break, sabotage and blackmail, so neither checking nor balancing happened, everyone went corrupt or impotent simultaneously.
Let's imagine for a second that this a few billion dollars per year to Google is correct. Why do you assume that it covers everything to be done by Google itself - from hosting to running actual servers? Apple may very well pay Google a licensing fee, take a trained LLM and run inference themselves locally or even at a yet another 3rd party for example a datacenter corporation or any mix of these. And then a true real cost of running just the inference on every Apple device would be separated into a completely different org payment flows, very obscured and higher than just a license fee.
I'm not saying that this is what really happens. I'm saying that believing a CEO is as foolish and as grounded in reality as believing Ed Zitron.
> Why do you assume that it covers everything to be done by Google itself - from hosting to running actual servers?
I don't, and that's the point, isn't it?
It's the keys to a substantial chunk of the kingdom for $1B a year. Literally they are getting, for a very small price, the right to distill their own models from Gemini.
Is there money in this for someone with a data centre? Possibly. Is there money in it for NVIDIA? Possibly.
But either way, that's not OpenAI or Anthropic, is it?
> It's the keys to a substantial chunk of the kingdom for $1B a year. Literally they are getting, for a very small price, the right to distill their own models from Gemini.
Here is a different interpretation: Apple bought the rights to distill and use a smaller version of one unspecified model in the Gemini family (there are many such models).
The distillation will be carried out at Google's data centres so that the original weights never leave Google premises.
For this to be keys to be kingdom it would need to cover all current and future models and would need to be very permissive with regards to distillation parameters and allowed uses of the distilled model.
I expect the reality to be somewhere between these two extremes.
What a load of damage control. Partnerships are not something dumb algorithm can pick up like in some AdSense campaign. This was deliberately done by a human after a series of negotiations between parties in writing. You (Proton) were absolutely not intentionally avoiding it, but you were intentionally seeking it and finalized the contract yourself.
Well, he knows the price for this service - you donate 2 billion real USD to Mr. Orange private shittoken scam "fund" and you go free. He should scrounge his pockets or ask his cronies to prepare a required fee.
I wish Schengen would one day apply mirror visit policies, to make countries taste their own poison. Like - "Ok UK, you want out of Schengen? Fine. You will now pay 162 EUR for a single one time entry per person. Thank you very much for your interest.". Or "Oh, you want a 5 year multi entry visa, which EU can grant for like 30-60 EUR? It will be reciprocal 1086 EUR for you. It was a pleasure of doing business with you, sir.".
And do the same with every other renegade, including reciprocal mirror tariffs and stuff. Want to play games? Let's play them together.
reply