Merging the failling companies into the other ones is the usual Elon thing, Solar City didn't get acqui-merged into Tesla for its great result.
It's not a "scam" in the traditionnal sense, it's riding the bubble while it's there, stock value is "supposed" to be about the company performance and potential but technically it doesn't have to be, it's about what some people are willing to pay for it (the stock, not the product the company sells) and that's all. That's also why tesla has such a valuation.
You can see it in the comments even here and other thread about this IPO, some people read the numbers, and some have just religious sounding comments about it being the biggest revolution ever or making the history book etc ...
And that's also why they need to keep elon as CEO because in the scenario where they remove it and get the best car company CEO and become a great regular car company that works and ships lots of great car ... Their valuation would be reduced a factor of ten
Not parent, but Tesla is currently worth more in the stock market than the ten biggest car seller combined
That's with falling sales, with no new product in sight and their latest release a big dud (despite SpaceX ordering massive amount of it to prop it up), and with a pricing and thus margin that is going to be massively lowered or beaten by Chinese ev. Protectionism by the US can only go so far, the US alone doesn't have a trillion dollar worthy car market.
They're also losing the race in self driving, and the biggest innovation in EV (semi instant charging) is coming from China not from them.
They had a lead and a massively advantageous legal situation and they squandered it, now you add the association of Elon to the brand making it toxic in many places and it's not looking rosy, the brand can be fine but it's valuation at one point or another will have a wake up day.
Tesla's EV is worth about the same as the the EV of the term biggest car companies combined. It is highly speculative, but their current new product is the Semi, which started volume production last month, and they have the robotaxi and Optimus in the pipeline.
One advantage they have over other manufacturers is their willingness to move into (and out of) adjacent verticals to optimize product cost/design/etc.
They could be beaten by EVs from China/etc, but only time will tell.
European truck manufacturers like MAN and Scania have already had electric semi-trucks on the market for years. And they are selling, the Danish transport giant DSV alone has 400 driving around Europe.
They're second in the race to self driving after Waymo, they're making the Cybercab, seems to be working out great as their cars will cost way less than Waymo's
No, it's a fine, but the fine doesn't absolve you from fixing it too so it stops. You have this delay to submit a plan for how and on what timeline you will fix it. If you don't do it, or take too long, we will keep fining you, increasingly.
An exemple what how in the old microsoft case they ended up puttin a daily fine for non compliance until microsoft balked back and fixed it (after they tried to act tough and pretended to ignore them).
Doesn’t Temu direct ship to the customer? What if they ship in plain unmarked packaging and keep changing the address of the sender? Is the EU customs peeps just going to start inspecting every single package from China looking for items from Temu? That sounds like a logistical nightmare. This sounds like old school thinking where you can stop whole containers full of stuff from a single supplier.
At some point it's a diplomatic incident and will affect EU-Chinese relationships. Even the Chinese government doesn't want to fuck it up for all Chinese companies just because one of them feels like the rules don't apply to them. It's not like the only goods flowing from China to the EU are cheap trash.
They'll put them on naughty list that will be enforced by financial institutions, i.e. it will be an infraction for credit card operators to process such a payment. Financial operators have well oiled compliance facilities and the payment won't clear. If Temu won't get the money, they won't ship the parcel. And if they won't ship, then there will be a bit less carcinogens in EU. Good stuff.
Just in a poxy country like the UK it's millions of parcels a day delivered across multiple ports mostly inside containers.... It's simply not feasible to check it all, it would cost a ton of money to have enough checkers and not slow down deliveries.
That's a failure of the state to control its borders.
> it would cost a ton of money
That's why the EU is imposing a €3 fixed customs duty per item (and later another €2 handling fee) effective July 1 (should have been much sooner in my opinion) for small packages (under €150), in addition to the VAT.
> Ah, reminds me of good old "There are only 2 hard problems in computer science: cache invalidation, naming things, and off-by-1 errors."
You quip, but LLM KV caching (from the harness side) is quite easy: You get a cache hit on stable prompt prefixes, period. That means you want to keep the prefix stable, and only append at the end of the conversation.
Made up example: Don't put the git branch name into the system prompt part (that comes first), as whenever the branch name changes, that'd trigger a cache invalidation of the entire prompt.
Getting this right requires some care to not by accident modify the prefix, basically, and some design on communicating the things that can change (user configuration, working dir, git information, ...).
That sounds like the experience of writing Containerfiles; since steps are cached you want to pull the thing you are iterating on as far down as possible.
All of this work has been done before in different contexts. Memory management with bigger blocks and weaker definitions that change whenever some grad student gets a bright idea.
100%. Since you mention memory management: Generational GC is pretty much the same idea: Keep the stuff that's least likely to change an important property (liveness) together.
Conceptually the underlying general idea is to sort things based on stability if you can avoid recomputing properties of the stable part.
In France, basically every bank say (show in their app and everything) "if we call you and ask anything like code, confirmation, to do an action, anything, end the call and call us back, don't do anything on a call you didn't initiate".
Same in their app eg you try to do a sepa wire to a new recipient and you get a warning "are you on the phone with someone ? did someone ask you to do that ? please call your bank by pressing this button. By the way we will never call you to ask an auth code or to do a wire"
A few UK banks detect that you're on a phone call and show a message like "we've never called you" or "we are not calling you right now" in their app, I think that's really smart.
Here is a fun one, my mobile phone company has an account lock along with a pin and OTP over SMS system. In order for me to activate a new device (like an phone upgrade) with eSIM over the phone, I need to unlock my account with account lock, give them the pin over the phone, and read the SMS OTP to the mobile phone rep online. I get doing the account unlock and verbal pin, but I don't get why they ask for the OTP especially when they train us to never share the OTP over the phone. I even asked the rep about it, but he mentioned that you should never share the OTP if you did not initiate the service request. From a security posture point of view I think that stinks. I am not exactly sure how they expect SMS OTP to work in the case where my phone is not functional.
And then we have the national post office sending its notifications from the scammiest-looking domain they could find: noreply@notif-colissimo-laposte.info
In Turkey, if my bank calls me, they also send a push notification telling "We are calling you. The representative's name is $NAME. You can talk safely".
Unfortunately in the US, maybe elsewhere, pharmacies and medical offices have trained the elderly it’s okay to verify their dob when they call. Costco does that when they call and it drives me nuts.
Well, I could go with a different insurer that blatantly and brazenly lies about their network coverage[1], or I could go with one that doesn't, but still doesn't have my doctors in it, or I could go with the other one that people claim consistently denies care and coverage.
Also, if 'Just for a discount' isn't a reason to use them, do you have $3,000 lying around to wire me? If you do, I'll happily switch to a much more expensive insurer that meets my other criteria, and might or might not send me marketing materials disguised as fishing SMS. (I'll let you know if they do.)
---
Insurers aren't banks or ISPs or gas stations. They don't provide a fungible service that is nearly identical from one to the other. You can't 'just switch'. They are both heavily obfuscated, and heavily differentialized, because the healthcare 'market' is obfuscated and heavily balkanized.
And all of them are utter shit, but in different ways, and if you are lucky, you won't discover the ways in which yours is shit.
---
[1] How this isn't a statutory capital crime for anyone with the rank of director and higher, I have no idea. But the fact that the people orchestrating this are permitted in civil society does lead me to believe that maybe we don't live in a just world.
I don't disagree with you in general terms, but what % of total commits or code change came from you and the three others leaving? A long lived long tail is great, but it still often dies out when you cut the head
If you’re not that familiar with the project then what’s it to you?
Personally, I think this is great and I’m going to send this to my boss who might have to make a similar decision someday. It seems to me like they could have just sold the product to them but went to lengths to keep it independent; that’s the type of thing we should encourage.
No offense intended but sometimes this type of comment sounds like the other side of the AI psychosis coin, like an anti AI psychosis.
To be fair regarding taxes it should be that you get all exemptions by default and the other side telling/justifying you why you don't qualify, instead of you not getting the things you should because you're not sure how to interpret the law or don't know this or that rule exists. Taxes shouldn't be that difficult, and the US version of it seems to be behind even the one I have here in europe (where my taxes are done "for me" for anything non business owner related). If the government is calculating your taxes anyway, they should just give the number to you instead of asking you a number and you better have the same as us or you're guilty of something.
Feels like a system that is deliberatly made to be more punishing for those who can't afford the help or the education to figure things out.
I would agree with you on most situations (like 1040 personal income taxes especially).
But in this particular tax credit, there's no way for the gov to know automatically what percentage of payroll was spent in qualified R&D expenses, since it's day to day business operations. Which is why we are _forced_ to hire an outside firm and pay them thousands of dollars (when Claude did an even better job), just to analyze how much of our time qualified as R&D expenses.
The problem I have is that I am forced to have to find a firm to do this, and most firms won't even work with companies as small as ours. So then we're stuck and losing out on years of R&D tax credits at the moment, when I really don't need them anymore, to be honest.
Not parent, if you want to sell an old original video game you know has value, it's either the proper collector channel (slow, super involved, higher pay), the generic resale channels (fast, no effort, lowest amount possible) or ebay (relatively fast, a bit involved but not too much, pay depends on how good you defined the product).
I had some old stuff around that Mr everyday might find (eg pristine original Gameboy Pokémon cartridge without box), and quick resale would give me 10 euro, involved resale would ask me hours and hours of work ebay allowed me to sale for 120+euro spending 1h on the description and picture (to show the scratch etc).
Another case is "oh you have the msi ge77vx4 laotop and you look for the plastic keyboard map in azerty? You can pay a 500e rma if they even allow it or buy the piece for 20e on ebay and fix it yourself"
Ymmv but it has a specific place that no one really have right now
It wouldn't have the same appeal if they reported seeing "larger than average size squids we didnt know existed". Every story was embellished in a world without pocket cameras. And the further you go back, the more grand the fiction was. Tales of men splitting the sea and walking on water.
I'm not unconvinced Hegseth bought wholesale into the book version of Starship Troopers, since Heinlein complaining about calling it the Department of Defense is one of his stand-in character rants. But that is my personal bias since I forced myself to suffer through it recently.
Yeah, the idea is that we wanted to move focus from might make right to deterrance and international law. It's why the UN charter prohibits agressive war but allow self defense, and why the US renamed its departement of war to department of defense in 1947.
So yeah, sure, in the current attitude and action that are very much "hey let's go back to that great time where we openly agreed war of conquest are a good thing" they have it makes sense.
Polling I saw says only about 18% of Americans are calling it that, with 72% sticking with the actual legal name (Department of Defense). Even a majority of Republicans are still calling it the Department of Defense.
The other name changes by the Trump administration are also not catching on.
70+% also continue to call the Gulf of Mexico "Gulf of Mexico".
A large majority also continue to call Mount Denali "Mount Denali".
A significant majority is still calling the Kennedy Center that instead of "The Donald J. Trump and the John F. Kennedy Memorial Center for the Performing Arts".
North Korea calls itself the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, but nobody else calls it that. It also claims to control the entire Korean peninsula.
The executive order doesn't purport to rename the department, it explicitly authorizes executive agencies to use a set of additional “secondary titles” for the department and its officials whose legal title includes the legal name of the department.
Umm...when we lived in Colombia, my son decided to re-name himself Martillo Veneno. For those who don't know Spanish, that's Hammer Poison. You have something against that?
It used to be named the Department of War and Palmer Luckey suggested naming it back. People agreed, so they did. It's just another part of changing the posture to match the philosophy that the best defensive is a good offense. It seems to be working pretty well, if you know what we're defending against.
For a few years before it was the Department of Defense it was the National Military Establishment (with an initialism with a very unfortunate pronunciation given its function) and before that it didn't exist at all.
Now, before the National Military Establishment was formed to unify the nations military bureaucracy, there were two separate cabinet level departments, the Department of War (which oversaw the Army) and the Department of the Navy (which oversaw the Navy, including the Marine Corps.) When the NME was created, the Army was split into the Army and the Air Force, and the Department of War was likewise split into the Department of the Army and the Department of the Air Force. Both of these new Departments and the Department of the Navy remained (briefly) cabinet-level departments with their own Secretaries, while the NME was headed by the new Secretary of Defense.
Very quickly, though, further reforms were adopted in law and the NME became the Department of Defense and the service secretaries were formally subordinated to the Secretary of Defense and were now subcabinet positions (which is how the DoD got its unique, within the US executive branch, Department with its own cabinet level Secretary with subordinate Departments headed by a subcabinet level Secretaries organization.)
TLDR: The Department of War was not an earlier name for the Department of Defense, it was the name for the Department of the Army before the Air Force was split out from it.
> Palmer Luckey suggested naming it back. People agreed, so they did.
Well, again, it couldn’t be named back to “Department of War”, because its only previous name was “National Military Establishment.” And while some people obviously agreed that it should be called “Department of War”, they didn’t actually rename it. The name in law of the organization named “The Department of Defense” in 1949 by amendments to the National Security Act of 1947 remains “The Department of Defense”. It hasn’t been renamed. The present executive branch leadership has adopted nicknames for the department and the titles of its officials ("secondary titles” in the language of EO 14347 which formalized the system of nicknames [and also recounts as if true the false history that “Department of War” was previously the name of the Department of Defense].)
There are technicalities around all of this yes, but we used to have a Department of War with multiple branches of the military under it. Now we have a Department of War with multiple branches of the military under it. It's only named by executive order, which in practice is almost indistinguishable outside of some paperwork that few people will ever see. It's largely the spirit of the thing and the shift in communications posture.
> we used to have a Department of War with multiple branches of the military under it.
No, we didn't. When the Department of War existed, it had exactly one branch under it, the Army. The Navy (including the Marine Corps)—as well as, in time of war only, the Coast Guard—was under the Department of the Navy, which was a separate cabinet level department.
When the US Army Air Forces, which were not a separate branch of the military, was turned into the US Air Force, which was a separate branch—by the National Security Act of 1947—the Department of War was abolished, and replaced with the Department of the Army (which had only the Army under it, just as the old Department of War had) and the Department of the Air Force (which had only the brand new Air Force under it.) There was never was Department of War with more than one branch under it.
This was also the same time that the National Military Establishment, headed by the Secretary of Defense, was created to provide unified structure within which the three military departments (Army, Air Force, and Navy) were embedded (but not, initially, actually subordinated: all three service secretaries were still cabinet-level officers.)
Two years later, amendments were passed to the National Security Act of 1947 which renamed the NME to the Department of Defense, and formally subordinated the service secretaries and their associated departments to the Secretary and Department of Defense, and, but for some minor changes like the creation of the Space Force as a separate branch within the Department of the Air Force, remains the structure in law today.
The only cabinet-level departments that ever had multiple branches of the military under them were the Department of Navy and the Department of Defense. (The Department of the Air Force, as noted in the preceding paragraph, has for the last few years also had multiple branches, but did not in the brief time it was a cabinet level department.) The Department of War, and the Department of the Army that replaced it a (both as cabinet level departments and when the latter was a subcabinet department) have only ever had the Army.
Again, you're missing the spirit. What we would consider today's Air Force and Navy were both under the same Department of War around the founding of the country and we're having the 250th anniversary of the U.S. It's clear that between the anniversary of the country and the threats the country is trying to deter, there is a clear purpose behind these changes and they are rooted in some history. I can get pushing back a little on imprecise language, but whatever LLM you're using is missing the point and wasting time.
It's not a "scam" in the traditionnal sense, it's riding the bubble while it's there, stock value is "supposed" to be about the company performance and potential but technically it doesn't have to be, it's about what some people are willing to pay for it (the stock, not the product the company sells) and that's all. That's also why tesla has such a valuation.
You can see it in the comments even here and other thread about this IPO, some people read the numbers, and some have just religious sounding comments about it being the biggest revolution ever or making the history book etc ...
And that's also why they need to keep elon as CEO because in the scenario where they remove it and get the best car company CEO and become a great regular car company that works and ships lots of great car ... Their valuation would be reduced a factor of ten
reply