Good; I was worried I'd stumbled into some some paleo-esque "only drink from puddles at dawn and dusk to maximize your gut flora development" nonsense.
Interesting - having read the book several times I don't get the reference to the dinner scene; will have to look it up.
The parts which bothered me were the Zendaya slow-mo flash-forwards being too long and too frequent with no substance, and Lady Jessica crying far more than reasonable for the character I remember.
We need to go beyond stopping mergers. Any company which sees itself as large or powerful enough to make unveiled threats against a national economy needs to be broken up.
For ultra-large companies (e.g. any company with a market cap over $100B at the moment), default-deny should be the position for any mergers from this point - the burden of proof should be on them to show why the merge would not only be non-harmful, but actually benefit the wider economy.
Man, I came in instinctively wanting to argue the opposite point, but reading your thought in this clear way made me second guess myself. You are simply right and I have no _real_ arguments against it (maybe some ideology, but thats not useful), so I changed my mind.
Well, if a merger is proposed, that's because management has a credible argument that it's a boost for the two companies involved. Say 1%. If one of those is a >$100B company, then that's a $1B boost for the overall economy.
If you assume that a $1B boost for the economy is an argument in favour, then all big mergers are supported by credible arguments. (Which may turn out to be wrong in hindsight, of course, but that hardly affects their credibility at the time.)
This all sounds like an RAA to me: That way of looking at big mergers leads to regarding all of them as good, which is an absurd conclusion, therefore it is an absurd view.
The absurdity comes from simply ignoring the potential net-negative side-effects of a merger, a 1B boost caused by higher prices is a loss for society due to inflation, there are many externalities from a merger that won't be easily priced.
No, I'm implying that inflation caused by a diminished competitive environment (the usual with large corporate mergers) coupled with the effects of a company having less competition and more market control does definitely outweigh whatever positive comes from it.
I'd hazard a guess that a lot of America's soft power is through the giant companies it created. Big Pharma, Big Banks, Big Tech...
If CIA wants to tap a foreign dictator, I'm sure they can make a friendly call to some office software maker and ask for a one-off. Embargoes carry so much more pressure if there is no alternative to Made in USA. And so on.
Other countries are generally not in a position to wield this power but totally want to, or recognise the risk and pay through the nose to mitigate it. Look at France, which has built a complete domestic defense industry just to be independent of the USA.
You may argue this power is misused, and that's probably true, but in principle it is a nice-to-have for states, and thus societies, and probably the thing that keeps America birthing decacorns despite the costs.
Some kind of progressively increasing tax could possibly provide a disincentive. If it's based on turnover/sales rather than profit (to avoid creative accounting), then a merger would increase the tax burden compared to keeping two companies separate. It would also penalise the very biggest players, but maybe that would benefit the smaller companies and encourage greater market choice.
Is there a threat here, though? Even veiled, I don't see more here than "well we'll take our ball and go home", and the actual words are closer to "we and our friends will have to think harder about bringing in more balls".
An actual threat might be closer to "Nice independent nuclear deterrent you got there, be a pity if we stopped supplying security patches for Windows for Warships…"
(But I absolutely agree that any company "too big to fail" should be treated as a potential disaster waiting to happen, and broken apart accordingly; even when I happen to like them or their work, that big is too big).
I think "We bring tech jobs and tax revenue, which we will take elsewhere if you're not more compliant" is hard to label as anything other than a threat - particularly in the context of trying to play off the UK against the EU. UK politicians have made hay off the idea that being free of EU bureaucracy would make the UK a more appealing environment for companies; that was always bullshit anyway, but here Microsoft are trying to use it as leverage in the court of public opinion.
True in the abstract. But between also-ran countries which get obsessed with creating their own "national champion" mega-companies, and the stable of mega-donors which you need to have a meaningful political career these days, and the win-at-any-cost culture wars...
Every time this subject comes up people wheel out "the only obligation a company has is to its _shareholders_". Usually when they're complaining about DEI or social obligations being imposed on them.
Competence you can argue, but there is no guarantee that any company is more aligned with _the public as a whole_ than an elected government. It may turn out that they are in particular cases, but elections remain a real means for public to control governments that doesn't apply to companies.
Well, I'm not wheeling out any of that. Politicians are only truly obligated to their sponsors as well, but they won't say that out loud. Does this make things better?
In truth, a government also depends on its voters, and a company also depends on its customers. But none of this what I'm talking about. I'm talking about governments implementing FORCE on corporations because they're big enough to be heard and seen and to challenge them. Is that good? Why?
Take a country like Russia where only what Putin says matters, everyone else is his pawn, even if on paper they may be billionaires holding big companies. Is that an improvement over having genuine corporate voices making their point?
If you're convinced, for some silly reason, that you live in a legit republic, I recommend researching how a banana republic operates, or say Russia, which is also a democracy & a republic on paper, and learn how every single procedure and institution is subverted and behind the decorum, the rulers are doing whatever they want, basically.
And once you do this... look back to your country with new eyes, and you'll be shocked. It's the same thing. But with more make-up on.
> Take a country like Russia where only what Putin says matters, everyone else is his pawn, even if on paper they may be billionaires holding big companies. Is that an improvement over having genuine corporate voices making their point?
Russia is not a democracy so your premise is flawed from the start.
Oh yes it, they have elections and everything. "But it's just superficial, not real". Well, let's look at France now. People elected someone, and he flipped on them, and their protested. What's the end result, in this democracy? President 1, people 0.
Are you really comparing a representative democracy where the currently elected officials will probably be ousted in a few years with a place where protesting gets you thrown ostentatiously out of a window, to prove a point to everyone?
No he doesn't have prove anything to you. What kind of non-sequitur is that? Mergers can reduce competitiveness, and governments can be incompetent - both can be true at the same time.
It's very simple. Their argument is that no company should ever challenge a government, that if this happens, the company is too powerful and should be broken apart.
Just to make this clear, in a normal democracy, anyone can challenge a government or institution, even separate individuals, as long as they have merit, legal or moral, to their claim and they can demonstrate it.
The user proposes that by default all claims of a corporation to a country are illegal and harmful and they should be punished and split apart for it.
So... if that's a valid argument, it suggests an unchecked government, with no comparable size organization to challenge it is better somehow. Governments are better. But are they?
Two things can be true. One can think that only the state should have hundreds of billions of dollars in cash, not people, organizations or corporations. The same person can fear the government as well, and actively oppose virtually any government control over anything. (Especially if it is spectacularly dangerous and has no benefit.)
We're not discussing a "both ways" situation here. The premise was that big companies should be broken down, while countries should be kept monolithic, strictly overpowering them.
I'm asking... prove to me that governments vs corporations are a kind of conflict where governments are always correct. Because if they ARE NOT... then the idea "we must break up any company before it can even talk to us" is bullshit, isn't it?
Someone has to sit at the top of the tree, making decisions whose impact has to be accepted by the people below.
Government is far (far!) from perfect, but at least it aspires in the right direction (where "right" is defined by the zeitgeist of the population, and so by definition what government will tend towards).
Companies are beholden to no-one but the markets. Markets are demonstrably not aligned with what is best for the populace, but rather what is best for owners of capital. We can't change that property of companies easily, but we can, in theory, hold government to a higher standard than "do whatever the highest bidder says". So, I'd like government to stay at the top of the tree.
Someone has to sit near the top of the tree, making decisions whose impact has to be accepted by the shareholders, employees and customers of a company, and communicated to the governments of the world. Not all products and services can be implemented by a small mom-and-pop shop. Some things need scale. And not only that.
Corporations are far (far!) from perfect, but at least they aspire in the right direction (where "right" is defined by the zeitgeist of those people they service above, and so by definition what behavior will a corporation tend towards).
Governments are beholden to no-one but their sponsors and shallow populist trends they use to rise to power by exploiting the large distance between voter and representative, often nothing in common to discuss, so the debate is kept low-level, basic, and full of the same lies repeated over and over again to slightly different audiences every 4 years or so. Politicians are demonstrably not aligned with what is best for the populace, but rather what is best for them clinging to power and servicing their behind-the-scene sponsors (or in some countries, public lobby). We can't change that property of governments easily, but we can, in theory, hold companies to a higher standard than "do whatever the highest bidder of our party says". We can vote with our money, and vote with our speech, and boycott a product or a service much more easily than we can outvote an incumbent party or a law, when they betray us. As we see in France, protests do nothing. Big once we have aligned corporations to us, they can represent our voice in front of large, cumbersome governments, and bring balance back to us. So, I'd like corporations to stay near the top of the tree, and not make this a government autocratic monopoly of control.
P.S.: BTW when you say "companies are beholden to nothing but the markets..." I hope you realize... we're the markets. Not any less than we're the voters.
You used different words, but describe two entities in a very similar situation.
Except a government is larger and essentially held hostage by the two or so major incumbent parties that have settled into every developed democracy. If people want to make the situation better, what are they supposed to do, exactly?
How did the protests in France go? Citizens destroyed some private property. And that was it. The government is fine and the president is fine.
Why is Microsoft bigger and scarier than the UK government? Be specific and don't hide behind synonyms and fragmented terminology?
UK GDP is $3.131 trillion, and Microsoft's is $200 billion. You actually think Microsoft is way too big in this situation and has to be broken down so the little-wittle government is not threatened by their displeasure? Oh, God.
I'm not even talking about the fact a government has monopoly on its territory, monopoly on using force through police etc. and it has military, what does Microsoft have here that makes it scarier than the damn government, huh?
You are using very loaded word for something that isn't even remotely true.
People choose which ever party or candidate should represent them in the government, they can at any point decide to vote for new candidates or parties.
Protests are not a legalislative form of action but a means for citizens to raise their concerns.
Microsofts value does not dictate its power, power dictate power.
They got multiple industries under their thumb and have been caught trying to subvert and or destroy competition.
You're welcome to try and create a country where violence, territory and military is democratized/privatized it doesn't change the point that we choose to live in countries where the social contract is that the government has monopoly over certain goods.
Excuse me, but can't you just at any point decide to not use Windows and Office? Well, yes, you can. As well as you can vote for new candidates or parties.
Why on the board? Are you a minister right now in your government, by any chance, to make this comparable? Are you a represented in the parliament/congress? Or maybe you don't understand shareholders, in fact, vote? That's funny.
Do you have a promising example of where normal people were shareholders and managed to push through a decision which was against the interests of the board? Sounds from your comments down this thread like you only favour influence being accessible to those with capital, which I disagree with largely based on the fact that it is the world we live in already, and things are not trending in a good direction.
Setting aside pedantry about the US being a republic and not a pure democracy, the fact is that wealthy elites decide election outcomes now. You ended up with Trump because elites in Russia wanted him elected more than elites in the US wanted Clinton. You got rid of him because elites in the US had woken up to the fact that they weren't the only player in that game anymore.
Culture wars are a proxy battlefield in much the same way that Ukraine is.
The Russians have an advanced, complex, and deep system of influence and espionage, but they're not the only players in this game. China, Israel, the Saudis, even allies like France, all push on US politics.
Some of them, like Israel and China, push pretty hard, albeit with different goals.
Also worth noting that in many cases they're just co-opting the system set up by US powerbrokers, e.g. Tucker Carlson of Fox News talking about how great Putin is.
I should really have said "elites, including those in antagonistic countries like Russia". My main point was more about the elites than where they are from.
No, they nailed it pretty unambiguously. It was a testament to weaponizing social media. In retrospect, an amazing time in history, glad we survived it (mostly because Trump isn't really very good at anything, including treachery).
Do you believe the appeal of Trump to disaffected Americans would be enough to win him the election, if big business (Koch et al) turned against the Republican party? Genuine question, because I feel like that is where the lever really is.
Moissanite is correct. It's rarely as simple as the sound bite would have it. It's a very interesting subject, honestly, especially in the era of AI popularization. Back in the day they did that work with humans, but the ways of tracking the results would be pretty much the same either way.
I'm the OP - and it's more complicated than that. Foreign powers fermented the discord in American society (which was already there for sure, but could have been much less toxic without external influence), hence describing it as a proxy war and not a foreign-backed coup.
The presidential campaigns had a billion dollars apiece, plus more from SuperPACs. Blaming the Russians for the outcome is just evading responsibility.
Blaming foreigners for anything that is wrong in your country. I thought, you guys, considered that a conservative feat. Are you copying the conservatives you blame, are you on a morally high ground and feel you have the right to affirm anything that helps your cause, whatever it might be?
Blaming foreign influence is not the same as blaming foreigners. Foreign influence is more about pushing the most convenient angle (to them) by means of propaganda, astroturfing or information laundering.
On a similar note, you can absolutely point to America for using the international monetary system in its favor, and that wouldn't be the same a blaming regular americans.
Any effect that Russia could have possibly had has been massively and wildly exaggerated. If anything, that election showed that elites don't decide the outcomes. Clinton did appeal to a lot of 'elites' but not to many rank and file Democrat voters, large numbers of whom didn't turn up and vote. Trump, on the other hand, didn't appeal to most 'elites', but did appeal to a lot of rank and file Republican voters, who did turn up and vote. That more than explains Trump's win without having to resort to foreign boogeymen (for which the majority of the evidence never solidified beyond being just hearsay) to explain the loss of an uninspiring candidate.
> Setting aside pedantry about the US being a republic and not a pure democracy,
Actually political scientists routinely refer to the US as a democracy. You're splitting a hair that experts do not. The word "democracy" does not only mean direct democracy. Mentioning this non-issue at all is a signal, but maybe not the one you hoped for.
I actually thought of this because of a line in The West Wing where the President is making a point about representation, then went off on a googling exploration to understand a bit whether it is a meaningful distinction - most of what I read seemed to reinforce the notion that the difference is important.
In day-to-day life it certainly doesn't matter - but when you are attempting to discuss the nature of that political system itself, I don't think it is at all unreasonable to call out the distinction and decide whether to discuss it further. No need for snide jabs.
Paraphrasing: "In this paper, we reiterate previous assertions about how utterly boned we are as a species in the event that a nearby star has gone supernova in the last few hundred years."
There is also something about galactic habitable zones that is interesting: maybe the Fermi paradox is explained by alien civilization only appearing in galactic fringes, and therefore spread well apart.
I only read the abstract and conclusions so maybe this is covered in the paper - but based on some reasonable estimates of the damage done to organic matter by these x-ray bursts (and similar events) and of the time taken for life to evolve, I assume we could significantly improve on the Drake equation by updating terms which represent "probability of not being scoured from existence".
> Even if you didn't "consent to [the original author's] ToS," you are still going to be bound to it via the redistributors license.
In the context of the GPL, are there real examples of judgements which bind defendants to a license they never saw or knew anything about, because of the errant actions of an intermediary?
It gives OpenAI a legal basis to launch a law suit if they want to.
Would it succeed? Is it right? Do they care? Eh.
…but, if I as some random reddit user say I might sue you for making a LLM you for training on data that may or may not have my posts in it, you can probably safely ignore me.
If you go and build a massive LLM using high quality data that couldn’t possibly come from anywhere other than openai, and they have a log of all the content that api key XXX generated; they both know and have a legal basis for litigation.
There’s a difference, even if you’re a third party (not the owner of the api key) or don’t care.
(And I’m not saying they would, or even they would win; but it’s sufficient cause for them to be able to make a case if they want to)
Just being able to make a case doesn't mean they will consider the legal fees and resulting judgment to be valuable enough to their business, nor that the suit will even make it into the courts resulting in a final judgment.
A lot of behavior that rides this line is rationalized via a careful cost-benefit analysis.
Sure, I'm just saying that in that cost-benefit analysis the 'risk of case failing and getting nothing from it' is significantly lower; it's your call as a consumer to do your due diligence and decide:
"I don't think they'll be bothered chasing after me"
vs.
"If it came to it I think the court will rule that they don't have a case after we play the pay-the-lawyers-all-the-money game"
vs.
"how screwed am I if they do, I lose and I have clearly, blatantly and provably violated their terms of service"
^
...because, and this is the point I'm making. There is no question; it is very very obvious if you do this, and it's not very difficult for them to prove it.
All they need is to slap you with a discovery order, look at your training data, and compare it to their output logs.
Mid afternoon meetings are terrible for me; I never feel like I can really settle into a difficult task unless I know that I have the option to make it the last thing I'm doing that day. As soon as I have something scheduled between 1 and 4, that day becomes a write-off and I try to fill it with other meetings and smaller, less consequential tasks.
If I could start each day with 2-3 short meetings then have the rest of the day available to get something actionable done, both me and my employer would be much better off.
Just to clarify, because this one tripped me up: you specifically mean alcohol, right?