Following that logic, they’ll have to keep spending quite a bit to get to the user base of the current hyperscalers, some of which are already ahead of OpenAI in terms of LLM performance.
very interesting, will look into this. I know for a fact that you cannot compile the likes of LMDB and RocksDB to work with WASM but this looks promising for our custom storage engine to be able to make it work with the browser. Thanks for this!
The same goes for anything that provides value right? If you make some useful software, by that logic I should be allowed to copy it and use it in whatever way I see fit (including commercially), no matter what license you used?
If I refuse to make it available (commercially or otherwise)? Absolutely. Copyright exists to incentivize production and distribution.
I can see it argued that, being less critical than medicine, perhaps a book or software could be "out of print" for longer than medicine being out of production before the copyright protection ceases, but ultimately the only reason we have copyright to begin with is too encourage people to create and make available.
So yes, by all means. Make orphaned and out of production works publicly available.
You mean - on a permanent basis? Everyone knows that poor availability of GLP-1 medicines in the past were because of difficulties scaling production to match demand that unexpectedly proved insane. No one was ever intentionally withholding them. It was a temporary problem and it is now solved.
I do think medicine is a special category because people need it, whereas if there is a 36 month gap between a novel's first printing and second, I (being the radical copyright reform advocate I consider myself) wouldn't think we need an exception to allow other publishers to publish it during that window, as with medicine.
I do think that at some point that window is long enough that the author and publisher lose any logical justification for keeping something unavailable while the rest of us subsidize their ability (via courts, laws, and police) to do so. After all, if we're paying for that stuff, what are we getting in return?
Maybe we should look at it differently. If there was no patenting, only way to create drugs will be know-how: just keep contents secret and there will be no copy-catting. But that's not allowed: they can't sell drugs without telling the public what's in them, and assuring that the content and the effects of it have been thoroughly tested.
Wouldn’t they still need to pay tariffs on all the parts they manufacture in china? Maybe I’m misunderstanding the tariffs but it sounds like Chinese companies would have to build completely separate supply chains to keep the US market
Before no, or at least not very high tariffs. Now I have no idea, Trump’s story changes daily. However lots of US made autos are using Chinese parts so they are all affected to some degree.
Obviously there’s a balance to be struck here. We could legalise fentanyl and tell people to just not use it, but that probably wouldn’t have a very positive impact on society.
At the very least we should acknowledge the negative externalities. Just leaving it up to the market to figure out (especially if we allow the current tech monopolies to exist) will result in serious societal impact.
Social mobility index doesn’t really look at how easy it is to become very rich (I.e. get into the 1%). This is also explained in the methodology section of the article you linked.
In game development we still care about the distinction between soft and hard realtime. Almost all games are soft realtime, even if the gameplay itself is turned based as we're processing user input, updating UI, animating things and so on.
