then tell me what chinnese government stance on this matters, because I can tell that Meta doing is illegal but I cant say the same with chinnese company doing it on mainland china
At the time of writing, three of the four existing replies showed no indication of understanding your point xweb; the fourth one having been made unavailable via flagging (but one can guess from context that it too didn't understand).
I don't know much about RFK Jr, I hope he is just stupid. But if you dig into the origins of the vaccine situation, much of it was driven simply by a desire to make money using vaccine manufacturers, and the "proof" was retrofitted to the goal with junk science that was essentially abusing disabled children. (Horribly invasive medical procedures with no medical necessity).
Was, they made the smoothest silicon sphere, Avogadro project. And now apparently they define it via physics as mentioned in ops article, "namely a specific transition frequency of the caesium-133 atom, the speed of light, and the Planck constant"
I don't know what Sabine would spend $40B on instead, but intuitively that seems like it could buy a lot of research in a lot of areas, rather than picking particle physics.
And it doesn't have to be physics, it could be cancer research, or not even research: each country involved could upgrade their sewage system instead.
But Sabine doesn't have to have all the answers to be right to point out that there's an enormous conflict of interest if you ask particle physicists whether they'd like $40B. Of course they'll say yes.
I think they are confusing "conflict of interest" and just "in their interest".
If you asked me if my friend Bob should get a free $100 or if I should get a free $100; of course I'm going to choose myself, as that's in my best interest. There is no conflict though.
I believe the core point being "of course particle physicists want more funding of particle physics"
>But if you don't trust the budget priorities that the scientist themselves create, why would you trust Sabine's opinion on those priorities?
Her argument is that very particular niches of science receive extreme funding leading to advanced results in particular areas, which other areas can not meaningfully engage with. This funding imbalance is not "decided by the scientists", in any meaningful way.
Nowhere does she imply that she should decide who gets funding, in fact she wants an end to publicly funded research. I really dislike it if people criticize other based on made up arguments about them, like you did.
I only see a push for AI to produce more developers. How could AI, as we know it today, even replace developers?
More developers isn't at odds with the previous comment. That is how you can more easily push the jobs to low cost areas! When 张三 in rural China is given his first computer he can jump right into being a programmer too. Thus you can give him the job instead of a high priced developer in America.
I want to build a thing. Before AI it would take 1 year and a team of five developers. Now with ai, it's gonna take you 6 months and 3 developers. Those two developers didn't get jobs because of AI.
You haven't even put developers out of job as you must remember that I also wanted to build a thing, but couldn't because you had all the available developers tied up. Now there are two freed up who can come work for me. There is no end to all the software we want to write.
That is the hope! Only time will tell if this tech is deflationary or inflationary though. You also want to build a thing, but do you have funding for it? in this economy?
> Only time will tell if this tech is deflationary or inflationary though.
Or both. That would be my bet. The industry in general will see a decline. The massive growth in developer numbers will place enormous supply-side pressure. But certain experts who remain supply constrained along with increasing demand for those special services amid the explosion of new software being written will make a killing.
Can you explain further why you think nobody has tried teaching first graders math exclusively using calculator in the 30 years they've been dirt cheap?
That's after all the implication from your assessment that there would be no good data.
Under this administration? Mainly that Trump doesn't want to directly own everything.
What's stopping the current admin from saying "we don't like you, you gotta sell", now that's another question! Currently the main answer is "your willingness to pay bribes".
