It isn't a monthly subscription. Its an annual subscription broken up into 12 payments.

I understand that there was a lawsuit and all that, I read through part of the Adobe thread from the other day. I am not defending Adobe in that regard.

If you only want the software for 2-3 months, the month-to-month agreement is available, but if you have a longer-term need for the software you get a discount for committing to a year's worth. If you take the discount, pay the cheaper monthly cost and then cancel before the end of the commitment, a penalty seems fair.

Again I am not defending whatever obfuscation of terms that led to the oft-mentioned lawsuit, just that there seems to be some confusion about monthly and annual commitments.

I had no idea a monthly subscription was even available. You have to ask the website in my region for “more details and more plans” to even see the monthly subscription.

Also because they offer “a discount” on the first year here, it’s 38€ month/yearly plan or 104€ a month/monthly.

I don’t know. If you’re going to allow Adobe to buy its competitors and monopolise entire regions of our economy, this seems a bit shit.

> ...it’s extremely unlikely that Europe will be successful at this. The future is US-China dominated.

I think the events of the last few weeks have been a wake-up call to many people around the globe who now see the value of not having their entire economy (or telecommunications &etc) be vulnerable to the whims of one person, be that the richest person in the world or a president nobody in Europe voted for.

I suspect there's a lot of really smart people who were previously happily living/working in the US who are now looking to emigrate to other lands, Europe could easily allow them to go over there and practice their skills on a Europe First initiative. Could also rope in the Chinese to help as they also aren't too happy with the current state of affairs.

Sure I’m just saying Europe is not a place. Europe is not a giant coordinated economy. I’m “European” and I know how hard coordination problems are in the continent, since I’ve lived through its mismanagement my entire adult life.

> or a president nobody in Europe voted for.

Are you talking about the European Commission, which we didn’t vote for?

Your head of government appointed a member of that commission, though. For better or worse, it's similar to that same head of government being appointed by the people you actually voted for in a parliamentary system (but two steps removed).

> the value of not having their entire economy (or telecommunications &etc) be vulnerable to the whims of one person, be that the richest person in the world or a president nobody in Europe voted for.

.

> Could also rope in the Chinese to help

This is pretty funny. That's just switching who you rely on.

> Europe could easily allow them to go over there and practice their skills on a Europe First initiative

In Europe we prefer unskilled labour from third world countries so that they can do uber eats for cheap

He’s surrounded himself with idiot sycophants. It’s a well-known failure mode of the rich and powerful that he should have seen coming ten years away.

Stay out and distance yourself from either camp? You're absolving the agency of the richest person in the world. And I get that might hard when one has got a crippling social media addiction and can't help but run their mouth. But again, let's not absolve the agency of the richest person in the world.

Traditionally that's what most public-facing CEOs and other business leaders have done, keeping their politics to themselves in order to avoid needlessly alienating customers and to maintain business continuity as administrations come and go.

That won't work with Trump. Not if you built your businesses on sectors that he is targeting, ranging from EVs to space exploration and research. Musk had to pick a side. Neutrality was never an option.

Few if any of us, regardless of wealth, have any real "agency" with Trump in office. There's nothing he can't fuck up and no one he can't fuck over. This is not an attempt at justification or absolution, just a simple statement of fact.

It would probably have worked just fine if the richest/biggest CEOs didn't jump to be first in line to appease Trump?

Again: you guys are missing my point. Whether you like it or not, or agree or not, they had no choice. Being rich as hell only leaves them that much more vulnerable to Trump.

If your business relies on the USPS as much as Amazon's still does, you want to have a seat at the table when the administration decides how they're going to kneecap the USPS. Same with tariffs, when half of the crap they sell comes straight outta Shenzhen. See also NASA and Musk. Being locked out of the rooms where these decisions get made is potentially fatal for them.

Your whole argument rests on excluding the middle, which could have been tepid support instead of appearing on stage to throw Nazi salutes, giving out money to voters signing fake Orwellian pledges about "supporting" the Constitution, and threatening to primary non-maggot congressional candidates. You've essentially set up a Roko's Basilisk, based around one small hateful man rather than superintelligence.

And I think I addressed the salutes (and implicitly his other actions) as being completely irrational and inexplicable. Musk does that sort of thing a lot.

If you're under the impression I think any of this is a good thing, that would be grossly incorrect.

I get that you're not in favor of the destructionists, like anyone not still drinking the increasingly-adulterated Kool-aid. I just think your argument veers into the territory of absolving Musk, and for no reason. It might work for Bezos or other business "leaders" that fell in line to kiss the ring but have otherwise have stayed mum, but not Musk.

Musk's all-in fervent support wasn't necessary. He doesn't get a triple pass from having to support the fascist candidate to avoid being put up against the wall, and then again for his natural tendency to embrace things and go hardcore, and then again for working to destroy/loot our institutions because it's just lucrative business. This isn't some British comedy sketch where someone is trapped by social pressure in an increasingly escalating role - at a certain point he is just a neonazi (or "sparkling autocratic authoritarian" for the "akshually" simps).

If it turns out that Musk was showing so much support as a cover for acting behind the scenes to oust Trump, I will happily change my opinion. But given Musk's longer trend of spiraling into debilitating social media addition, I'm not holding out hope.

Yeah, I don't disagree. No idea what Musk's deal is, but he's pretty messed up. He evidently lacks the slightest regard for how his words and actions play out in history.

Jeff Bezos seems to have made a few minor genuflections in Trump's direction and is otherwise unaffected (except for the wreckage Trump's tariffs are likely inflicting on Amazon.) No, Musk's decision was a choice. And now he's stuck with that choice. There is almost certainly no way that things "just go back to normal" with a future Democratic administration.

Torpedoing the Washington Post wasn't what I'd call a "minor genuflection," but whatever.

It would be interesting to hear this refuted rather than simply downvoted, by the way. What are some alternative explanations?

What do you mean? He’s obviously got a point? Even Steve Bannon thinks so. He says Elon was just ahead of the curve.

How much of Elon’s conversion was genuine vs mercenary is impossible to know, but it’s likely.

What blew me away from the Cyberiad was how funny it was.

I know the title is meant to be a play on The Iliad but the stories remind me more of Don Quixote.

When I was reading it, it seemed a lot of bits reappeared as Futurama jokes but then got to the story with the robot named Calculon and that made it obvious.

I used to know the Russian translation by heart (and all of Ijon Tichy)

I loved how is was mentioned in passing (as I recall it, 30 years later), that Ijon Tichy was followed by an entourage of Tichiologists.

Most “EU overregulation” is just consumer regs being painted in a bad light for American consumers, so the Us govt won’t imitate it.

EU banning most forms of GMOs was once considered wild over regulation.

GMOs in and of themselves are fine. It's just a technology. Banning something just because it's a GMO is stupid policy, and definitely over regulation. GMOs are a technology. One can modify a plant or other organism for many purposes. Furthermore, concerns over intellectual property rights over GMOs are a question for how to regulate this technology, not a reason to ban it.

It's not banned there's many approved ones: https://ec.europa.eu/food/food-feed-portal/screen/gmo/search

But it's also important to review each variation and study it closely to avoid potential food safety issues.

This appears to be the main difference between the EU and the US.

In the EU you need to prove your thing won't be harmful before you launch it. In the US you launch it, but then if it's proven to be harmful it might get banned.

I refer to that form of regulation as "closing the door after the horse has already bolted regulation".

This is the American position. “If you can’t prove it’s bad now, it should be legal immediately”.

Europe food regulation runs on the precautionary principle. You have to prove it’s safe first.

Turns out most GMOs were fine but they actually allowed for a huge increase in the use of Roundup.

Roundup is wildly aggressive pesticide and a lot of GMOs were called “Roundup ready” crops, so they could absorb (in theory!) huge amounts of Roundup without being affected.

But the huge increase in the use of Roundup in America might be behind (according to some) the increase in neurocognitive disease.

In the US this was never a thought.

They never banned all GMOs so the very fact that you think that is interesting.

Think about it - who told you that? Why? Who benefited ?

The comment that I replied to says that they banned most GMOs.

I kind of wonder if "overregulation" and "unionization" are two terms carefully chosen to be negative by corporate interests?

Like how "piracy" in the context of software licence violations is equated with raping and pillaging on the high seas, and the phrase "drugs and alcohol" appeals to those who might feel uncomfortable with alcohol being a (first class, world's most popular after sugar) drug.

> world's most popular after sugar

Leaving aside the weird categorization of sugar as a drug - yes, I know it's addictive, but not all addictive things are drugs - caffeine is considerably more popular than alcohol.

Caffeine is a psychoactive substance of the stimulant class. You could definitely categorize it as a "drug".

I know, I'm taking issue with calling sugar a drug, not caffeine.

If I told you a consumable substance is mind-altering, habit-forming, pleasurable and difficult to quit, very bad for your health in the quantities most abusers take it, but they continue to do so anyway- what would you call it?

I've always maintained that most "drugs" are just drugs other people dislike, and everyone is apparently happy to go along with this cognitive dissonance; hence the common phrase "drugs and alcohol", "drunk driving" vs "drug driving" etc etc.

> If I told you a consumable substance is mind-altering, habit-forming, pleasurable and difficult to quit, very bad for your health in the quantities most abusers take it, but they continue to do so anyway- what would you call it?

Macdonald's food?

"Overregulation" as a word inherently means something negative. "Unionization" doesn't mean anything negative by default.

What's wrong with GMO?

Turns out most GMOs were fine but they actually allowed for a huge increase in the use of Roundup.

Roundup is wildly aggressive pesticide and a lot of GMOs were called “Roundup ready” crops, so they could absorb (in theory!) huge amounts of Roundup without being affected.

But the huge increase in the use of Roundup in America might be behind (according to some) the increase in neurocognitive disease.

In the US this was never a thought.

I'm ok with most EU regulations and I still consider banning most GMOs wild over regulation.

It's an ideological choice driven by FUD instead of being based on actual science.

Turns out most GMOs were fine but they actually allowed for a huge increase in the use of Roundup. Roundup is wildly aggressive pesticide and a lot of GMOs were called “Roundup ready” crops, so they could absorb (in theory!) huge amounts of Roundup without being affected. But the huge increase in the use of Roundup in America might be behind (according to some) the increase in neurocognitive disease. In the US this was never a thought.

Exactly, but the EU could have limited glysophate use, instead of blanket banning GMOs while still allowing imports of soy beans etc grown with it.

(Noticeable: partial bans on glysophate have happened later).

Nobody’s perfect, but not allowing GMOs without long term impact assessments was seems like the right decision.

It might have the saved the EU tens to hundreds of billions in fixing the after effects of glyphosate on human food, which the US is now dealing with.

It’s quite simple - protect your food source, protect it from any change whatsoever that’s not 100% necessary, and you are likely protecting the health of hundreds of millions.

At the time, the rationale was that there was not enough knowledge on the long-term effects of GMO.

Which was 100% right.

It’s seems to me that the current “alcohol is bad” messaging coming from health podcasters and influencers (including Andrew Huberman) will be proven wrong in the long term.

Virtually nothing that humans have consumed for thousands of years has been proven to be bad for you after further research. Virtually nothing. The idea that we invented alcohol then consumed it for thousands of years by mistake is ridiculous. It’s like when eggs were bad for you because of cholesterol.

It’s preposterous, and it comes from the excessive focus on measurable outcomes coming from medical testing.

It’s like my neurologist once told me, after a scare, that I was a victim of VOMIT. I asked him what the heck was that - he said Victim of Modern Imaging Technology.

Huberman (etc) are likely following the same pattern. They saw a pattern in the data saying “alcohol is bad”.

What could be better for a health obsessed person? We know alcohol has bad effects, we know alcoholism is a problem. Let’s just say it’s all a problem.

But… Living in a Southern European country, it’s ridiculous. We don’t have the same rates of alcoholism as northern countries, and from that pov, Huberman’s Puritanism just sounds absurd. From that perspective, alcohol is just a mild sedative, with wonderful antidepressant effects.

Seems silly.

I don’t listen to health podcasts so not sure what they’re saying precisely but alcohol is literally a poison to the body. That doesn’t mean you can’t drink it in moderation and still live a long life, but to deny its toxic effects on the body is to deny reality.

That’s not my point. Of course it is. It’s also been consumed for thousands of years for other reasons.

The question is - in fairly moderate consumption in the right settings, is alcohol a net benefit to most people ? I’d say unquestioningly yes. Anti depressant and stress relieving effects are so powerful, for a small price. But this is like saying any medication is harmless - it never is. Alcohol is the psychological lubricant for civilisation.

Gabe Newell became a Microsoft millionaire decided to have a company who did things his way. Turns out he’s quite an ethical guy.

Not only that

The model gets to use training data of all humans.

But if you use the model as training data OAI will say you’re infringing T&Cs

So China introduced market competition at the political level and at the economic level.

And they did it while remaining authoritarian. Incredible.

highly meritocratic system all the way from bottom to top. incredible indeed. in china you start as a low level official managing a village, if you succeed - you're promoted to town etc. they keep detailed records of your performance in school from kindergarten and a comprehensive dossier is compiled to evaluated by party officials. that means you will never have a nincompoop in charge at any level.

maybe chinese nationals / or ccp members can correct or add some things.

> they keep detailed records of your performance in school from kindergarten and a comprehensive dossier

this also means you want your record pristine. And it is also why officials cover up problems rather than report it up.

But their current success to out-maneuver the US in terms of trade, as well as capacity, is testament to perhaps the success of such a system. I do recall there was a massive purge on corruption over the past decade(s), which is probably helped a lot. This did not happen in soviet russia.

That massive corruption purge is mainly Xi purging rival factions like Shangai and Jiang. Sure, it also targeted corrupt officials, but main target is rival factions in consolidating Xi grip on power. There isn't lot of taboo about corruption if you align with the correct faction.

And also stay aligned with the correct faction. This also provides golden handcuffs: should one's alignment change, past misdeeds will instantly be remembered.

Rooting out corruption in russia is simply not possible when biggest thief is at the top of the pyramid (absolute minimum stolen from russian nation is on the order of 100 billions $$ stashed all over the world, but its hard to count when its spread across many 'representatives').

He also actively promotes corruption of his underlings, but the important point is - within hard limits of their position. Get greedy and overstep that and either modern gulag or window for you. Good luck saying to the rest of population 'don't steal!'.

Xi is not flaunting his billion dollar mansions with golden toilets or megayachts while his kids grow up in Switzerland, is he.

Meanwhile the USA now has an openly corrupt president (openly favors his pal Elon Musk's companies in his daily speeches, lets Musk shut down the same agencies that regulate Musk's companies, etc) who is shielded by his party from impeachment.

China is starting to look quite well run by comparison.

If you appear to succeed- all that is needed is a face of success and connections to others who appear to succeed.

How does this differ from the US or western Europe?

You can express that the emperor is naked in europe, without the emperor sending you to prison, thus guarantee a constant churn and renewal, that leaves behind the cherished product of science - something more truthish.

Competition allows for the ‘creative destruction’ of inefficient industries. See Tesla leapfrogging GM and the other companies. Apple and Microsoft jumping over IBM.

Stuff like that can’t happen if you have protected national giants.

Because the alternative to a US dominated world is a world dominated by someone else.

History has shown that lesson again and again and again. There is no “peaceful world without a hegemon” period of history. There is Pax Brittanica, Pax Romana and Pax Americana which is now coming to an end.

Hold the population used iPhones. Wouldn’t be very popular.