You’re mixing up the high-end and low-end markets.
French wines exported to the U.S. don’t really address the low end of the market: Cheaper wines can be had from California’s Central Valley, Eastern Europe, or made domestically from imported grapes, etc. I assume the margins just aren’t high enough to make exporting low-end wines worth it.
Meanwhile back in France the low end is served by French producers using a mix of domestic and imported wine grapes (used to be mainly from North Africa). These are not A.O.C. or even D.O.C, just bulk wine that’s made to be tasty.
OT: I wonder if WASM is ready to fulfill the sandboxing needs expressed in this article, i.e. can we put the AI agent into a web assembly sandbox and have it function as required?
If the agent only needs the filesystem then probably. If it needs to execute code then things get flaky. The WASM/WASI/WASIX ecosystem still has gaps (notably no nodejs).
> Moreover, the [Henley] report uses a far narrower definition of ‘millionaires’ that does not include all dollar millionaires like the standard definition (people with net worth of 1 million dollars or more), but rather only individuals with liquid assets worth 1 million dollars or more, who are thus richer and more mobile on average than a standardly defined millionaire. In the case of the UK, the ‘millionaires’ identified by the report represent just a fifth (20%) of the UK millionaire population. Even then, the report is based on a small sample from within these narrowly defined millionaires and the sample is skewed towards centi-millionaires and billionaires, who are also likely to be the most easily mobile.
Are "people with net worth of 1 million dollars or more" considered very wealthy in the U.K. these days? In the U.S. there are many many homeowners who are millionaires by this definition, and that's not a population that would be likely to have the means to buy their way into another country.
> Goldman Sachs economist Pierfrancesco Mei wrote on Thursday that “finding a job takes longer in a low-turnover labor market.” He argued that “job reallocation,” or the pace at which new jobs are created and existing ones destroyed, has been on the decline since the late 1990s… Almost all job changes between existing jobs is taking place as “churn,” driving “almost all the variation in turnover since the Great Recession.” Goldman found that as of 2025, churn was well below its pre-pandemic levels, a “broad-based” pattern across industries and states, and this “mostly fall[s] on younger workers.” In 2019, it took a young unemployed worker about 10 weeks to find a new job in a low-churn state, now that’s 12 weeks on average.
Being faster on a lab-administered test doesn’t tell you anything about your game-playing ability. This research was focused on determining why people invert their controls, nothing more.
> In short, gamers think they are an inverter or a non-inverter because of how they were first exposed to game controls. Someone who played a lot of flight sims in the 1980s may have unconsciously taught themselves to invert and now they consider that their innate preference; alternatively a gamer who grew up in the 2000s, when non-inverted controls became prevalent may think they are naturally a non-inverter. However, cognitive tests suggest otherwise. It’s much more likely that you invert or don’t invert due to how your brain perceives objects in 3D space.
The research didn't study that so we can't draw any conclusions about the effects of playing flight sims in the 80s on human perception of objects in 3D space.
There was a very good article about magic [1] where the magicians describe tricks that are too good to perform because people will get angry. Apparently the audience is much more receptive when they believe they can figure out how the trick was achieved.
[1] The New Yorker. “The Real Work: Modern magic and the meaning of life.” by Adam Gopnik July 28, 2008
> ... [M]any avoidable defects are caused by business practices that focus on building and selling quickly, with minimal concern for repeat business or quality control, according to Robert Knowles, president and founder of the National Association of Homeowners and a licensed professional engineer who said he has inspected thousands of new builds.
> “There is no bonus for building the house to code, for quality,” Knowles said, to his knowledge. “There’s only bonuses for speed … and volume.” Knowles estimated 100% of all new builds probably have multiple code violations.
This leaves the home buyer having to very quickly assess the quality of the structure and account for this in their offer price. It feels like there's a business in here somewhere... Perhaps do a video call with a home inspector while you attend an open house?
I don’t think the person quoted is implying that it should be that way, merely pointing out a discovery that builders have made: they _can_ get a symbolic bonus. One can skip building to code… do a quick and bad job and move on to the next job, saving cost and moving onto the next paying job more quickly. That “bonus” doesn’t exist if you build to code (and of course it shouldn’t exist, but neither should the bonus that does exist, your stick should prevent it).
Those engines will be a major driver of whether “better” is achieved, in particular maintenance costs and fuel economy will need to move the needle.
reply