I always hear bad things about its standings in the frontier model rankings, although I don't follow that close enough to know if that's real or not. What's cool about Llama?
Basically after years of raising money as a non-profit & training on everyone's data, "Open"AI rug-pulled the world and decided to keep their secret models secret to become a for-profit venture.
I was pissed. Then Meta came out of nowhere to release Llama, a model with performance comparable to ChatGPT. I was able to download it & run it for free on my computer. Thank you Zucc, very cool.
Military ships are still built here. However, our loss of the commercial sector here means there's less talent and factories to tap into in the event of a total war scenario.
US has ASML- lots of the patents are ultimately owned by US entities, a great deal of the research and development is done on US soil, and the Netherlands aren't rocking the boat on sanctions, etc.
He's reported to have many more liberal friends when he was in college, used to be vocally anti trump, wrote a book criticizing rural Americans and their culture before running on a base of them. That kinda stuff.
At minimum he's made a never Trump - maga pivot for political expediency but it also seems like his positions are tied to whatever Peter thiel wants
I'm not so sure that things would settle down if trump was out of the picture. Trump is obviously an active force, but even if he is gone, the forces that led to his rise will still exist. In other words, even without trump there is a strong anti-elite, anti-expert, nationalist/isolationist movement in the US. Waiting for trump to die or go away is foolish.
Sure, but the thing is, from appearances Trump seems to lack the ability to think strategically, to plan, and importantly, to find and listen to people who know things.
Even setting aside most of the culture-war stuff, which is so white-hot right now that it clouds matters, I think almost any other politician other than Trump, AOC, MTG, and probably a couple more I'm forgetting, would be more likely to do that last thing.
Trump's main issue is that he gets all excited and makes rash decisions based on the last person he talked to, compounded by the fact that he chooses who to talk to overwhelmingly based on chump change "campaign contributions" (bribes), family nepotism, or just his existing network of sycophants.
I'm saying all this neutrally toward ideology and left/right. Frankly I think life was fine domestically under both G. W. Bush and Obama, because both of them weren't impulsive and easily swayed to erratic decisions.
Given with how poorly Ukraine has been treated, why would Taiwan ever think they could easily get an emergency supply of chips for drones and planes exported from the US and past a Chinese blockade?
If Trump or someone similar is in the office I'd expect that there would be demands that the chips stay in the US to protect the country from Chinese aggression unless there is some kind of bribe.
If it happened it would be sudden, like Japan or South Korea having built their own, sending some to their neighbor. It still seems unlikely to me, but it isn't impossible. If China found out before they were installed it would likely instigate conflict. If they did not, I have no idea what would happen. That is an unstoppable force meets immovable object sort of situation.
Impossible. There is no way China will allow that- it would lead to a Cuba situation.
I can't see how this wouldn't favor Taiwan? All the US republicans would start screaming about WW3 etc, it would put major pressure on China. I'd say it would be ideal for Taiwan.
The discussion now seems to be, "How do we get the chips out of Taiwan so we can let it fall to authoritarianism with the least political fall out possible".
Taiwan benefits from the US having access to some additional chip manufacturing to support a war effort and reduce the economic cost of intervening. At the end of the day, Taiwan can resist, slow down China, and make them pay an absurdly heavy price for trying to invade, but US participation is needed to break a blockade and end the conflict.
None of this was ever being done because there an expectation that chips were going to be exported to Taiwan in the middle of a conflict.
Yes, like every other security partner, Trump's immature and inconsistence isolationism makes things worse and unstable. But it was hardly the case that intervention would have be 100% assured under any other President, and it's not the case that that its at 0% under Trump. Improving the odds of intervention, slightly, regardless of who is in office, benefits Taiwan.
Moreover, Putin didn't attack US forces when he invaded Ukraine. There is a significant chance that the PRC would launch a Pearl Harbor style attack on the US and Japan at the outset of a campaign against Taiwan. That dramatically increases the odds of the US being involved in the conflict over the long term. Sure, it's also likely (probably more likely) that the PRC might try more limited form of coercion instead, but one ought to be prepare for the range of possible options.
It is worth observing that one of the major reasons why US conservative China hawks give for not wanting to support Ukraine is because it's not a vital US interest, and they want to focus on preparing for war with China and hopefully deterring it.
It is really unclear you should say why that the Ukraine is being treated "poorly", it is being treated how you'd expect an more isolationist administration who thinks it is a strategic distraction would treat it. The current US administration may well be wrong about this--there's definitely a case to be made that further increasing the cost to Putin for aggression increases deterrence in Asia. But the current administration was very clear in the election about how they felt about Ukraine, and they won.
The argument that unless Trump treats Ukraine "not poorly" no one, anywhere, ever, ought to anything to bend the curve to increase the odds the the US intervening on their behalf seems rather sentimental and unpragmatic.
It seems likely that Taiwan leaders have a better grasp than you do of the strategic choices they are making, and that random feelings about how "poorly Ukraine has been treated" don't enter into it.
If you just hate Trump, it would be easier and more direct to say that, rather than seeming to claim that other people in the world are acting irrationally.
Breaking Russia would mean less money and resources for China and more time for NATO, the thing conservatives seem to think is stupid / unimportant to prepare. It’s probably too late now but the opportunity was there in January.
If there weren’t other players in the game that might be true. As it is, though, the EU is rapidly rearming, and has proven itself to be far more principled and stable in the Ukraine conflict.
I wouldn’t trust a deal done with the USA to be worth anything right now. I would trust a deal done with Europe, Korea or Japan. All of whom would love to have TSMC build a fab in their respective territories.
The EU may be rapidly rearming, but there is no way it will be in a position to help fight off a Chinese invasion of Taiwan in 2027. They won't have the navy. They won't have the force projection capabilities. They won't have the ability to get past China to get assets to Taiwan.
I’m talking about a deal with TSMC to safeguard their production.
Although, between the EU, Japan and Korea there might be enough of an incentive for China to think twice even without the US involved.
There are two countries in the EU that operate nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers. More with conventional subs. Shutting down the sea lanes in that area would be relatively easy for any number of European countries.
One thing that Ukraine (if Iraq and Afghanistan didn’t already) has proven is that it is much harder to win a war for a major power than the posturing would have you believe.
The realistic scenario is that the Taiwanese elite does a deal with the CCP.
America is nobody's friend, at the end of the day China are still Chinese. Americans are xenophobic and racist. Increasingly anti free trade and isolationist.
Also I am incredibly sceptical that the US wants to go to all out war with China over Taiwan. A war they aren't even sure they can win and that REGARDLESS OF OUTCOME will leave Taiwan in ruins.
If the US is poised for full on dictatorship, it makes sense to go in early.
If there will be a change in leadership, it makes sense to wait until the US has weakened every alliance as much as possible under Trump and then invade quickly like what Russia did.
Xi has demanded that China be "ready" in 2027. So he seems to think that China will not be militarily capable of doing so before then. (Or at least he seems to be saying that. It could be a misdirection.)
> That's not something you or anyone else could predict.
You're right: nobody can possibly predict how a nation with no blue water navy, and zero relevant (naval or otherwise) combat experience (ever) might fare against the most expensive, trained, veteran naval combat force in the world - backed by the world's two largest and most expensive, trained, veteran air forces (USAF, USN).
> This would immediately cause a death toll in the millions and a nuclear response would follow.
This presumes that the United States would ever allow a blockade to happen to begin with. The US Navy goes where it wants.
> Towards the end of my stay, I started feeling something I'd never quite experienced before: genuine freedom. The freedom to dress how I wanted, speak my mind, eat anything, go where I pleased—without the constant mental calculations that had become second nature growing up in Indian society.
Something about being in a new culture where you don't understand the subtle things is very freeing
> destroyed all hospitals, churches, mosques and schools along the way
Hamas doesn't have an air force, and they're facing an enemy with a good air force and good intelligence. They can't have nice things like "zoning", if they stored rockets away from civilians they would all get destroyed.
So, in order to have rockets, they must be stored under targets that would cause political trouble if they were to be hit: hospitals, churches, mosques and schools.
Random anecdote, probably repeated all over Europe and the rest of the world: During World War II, the top leadership of the Norwegian resistance had most of their meetings in a civilian apartment in the middle of Oslo.
One you’re occupied, the only way to do resistance is from civil infrastructure.
And that makes it ok to commit warcrimes? Under that reasoning, which really only comes down to "because it is needed", anything is allowed. Including everything Israel does, because to them, it's also needed.
And here's the thing: hamas has extensive underground tunnel networks, so it actually _isn't_ needed to hide among civilians! They do it purely for the optics: every destroyed school or hospital will help sway Western opinion.
Hamas has an extensive network of tunnels, so it doesn't need to store weapons in hospitals on a permanent basis. Besides, many of those facilities host foreign NGOs which would protest as they'd know that it would justify their targeting. What you are saying is false.
> So, in order to have rockets, they must be stored under targets that would cause political trouble if they were to be hit: hospitals, churches, mosques and schools.
Sure man, whatever you tell yourself to sleep at night.
What's next, an ICBM hidden as a mosque tower?
Just think for a second in rational terms, who funded this if - as the IDF claims - every person entering and leaving the Gaza strip was thoroughly controlled?
Where did the suitcases of cash and weapons come from?
Just something to think about.
Hint: It's an artificial conflict, and both sides (Hamas and IDF) rely to consolidate their power on each other. Without Hamas, there can be no Natanyahu.
Without the Second Intifada, you mean. That's the moment when Israel's political left was obliterated according to domestic polling, and it hasn't yet recovered.
Hamas took over Gaza in 2007 and shortly after is when Netanyahu delivered those famous briefcases full of cash.
His goal in helping them take over was to foment a political split between the Palestinians in order to try to head off any possibility of a two state solution.
They provided what he thought of as the ideal justification for a hitler style ethnic cleansing on Oct 7.
You are mischaracterizing it. Willfully. That makes you a liar.
The "briefcases full of cash" were money from Qatar to pay the civil servants to keep the society going because PA wouldn't pay them (given that they were just thrown off the roofs in Gaza by victorious Hamas following a short civil war).
Now where that money went is a different conversation. But you are making it look like Netanyahu went into Israel's treasury, filled briefcases full of cash and had someone deliver it to Hamas. You are willfully lying.
It always strikes me how much effort certain people are willing to make to defend a state that is racist to its very core.
>Now where that money went is a different conversation
This is precisely the conversation we were having.
>But you are making it look like Netanyahu went into Israel's treasury
I neither said nor implied that. That is a lie. I know that the ultimate source was Qatar. Netanyahu nonetheless delivered it for precisely the reasons I gave.
These facts are public and well known, hence why I used the term "famously".
People do things with the best of intentions. Sometimes it doesn't work. How you went from there to Netanyahu supports the very entity he spent his entire life fighting - that's quite a reach even for the smooth brained pali supporters.
> defend a state that is racist to its very core.
The Jews wouldn't need a state if they weren't being ethnically cleansed, genocided, resettled, etc... throughout history at the whims of their Muslim or Christian rulers or "neighbors".
But as it is, we have wannabe genocidal maniacs running around the world wanting to kill every Jew and, inexplicably supported by the likes of you. So yes, Israel is not only needed - it's required.
It always blows me away how, historically, actual two-state progress has been intentionally hindered. There was a point way back when at least some meaningful work towards peace was at hand, but when Kissinger got wind of it and he wasn’t the one who could get the credit, he sabotaged the whole thing.
Fast forward to Benji saying that the best way to ensure funding for Israel is by having a strong Hamas, and things never change.
Supply and demand for labor will work itself out- prices will go up, companies will invest in efficiency, etc. People just need time to figure out the details, and the legal right to do the job.
Indeed, that's my thesis, I appreciate you making it crystal clear. The pipeline has failed, and if there is a will to fix it, it will take time. Until it's sorted, year after year, there will be folks who go without affordable housing. There are, as you said, going to be losers from this policy failure.
reply