Do you think most people under the age of 30 remember you can share a single computer between multiple users? When there was a single "home computer" or "PC" in the home, you learned about users and different rights. Unless you were a user back in those days or you've tinkered with any admin work, you wouldn't know this in 2026.
It's not my contention really that the UK or other nation can or can't afford to do things differently, it's more that that is the constant refrain coming from mainstream politics, along with a multitude of other excuses for relative inaction.
I’m going to disagree with the premise. The value in AI won’t come from providing AI but from using it.
The “knowledge cut off date” is 12 to 18 months ago for models, which essentially means that copyright has, in some ways, shrunk to that period since designing around is now very easy.
Given most people live on what they produced recently and not 20 years ago there’s an argument this makes access to knowledge and techniques fairer. Constant new creation is required to obtain a markup and that drives forward productivity
In other words it’s the copyright/patent argument all over again. And it’s perhaps a debate we need to have again as a service society.
>Remember that a therapist is really a friend you are paying for.
That's an awful, and awfully wrong definition that's also harmful.
It's also disrespectful and demeaning to both the professionals and people seeking help. You don't need to get a degree in friendship to be someone's friend. And having friends doesn't replace a therapist.
The problem is that the analysis of the alternatives only ever takes into account efficiency and not resilience. Which is typical of “rational expectations” belief systems based upon atomised individuals.
However the real world has politics in it, as we saw during the pandemic, at which points jurisdictions commandeer resources for themselves regardless of whether a “better price” is available elsewhere.
Within a jurisdiction where resources can be directed you only need one capacity for output. In a market situation you need multiple suppliers all of which with excess capacity to supply that you have reserved and which cannot be countermanded by other action (so it needs to be defended with military capacity). Once you cost all that in you may just find that doing it yourself is more efficient, once resilience is taken into account properly.
Nature rarely goes for the most efficient solution. When it does it tends to go the way of the Dodo.
I'm kinda surprised this isn't more popular. I figured we'd go this way eventually as we single out 10x-ers, give them a highly competent crew, and save a lot of money over your most expensive code monkey wasting time attending meetings, filling out Jira tickets, and giving presentations to the customer. You pay them a shitload of money - shouldn't you get every dollar's worth?
Honestly, at every job I spend an unreasonable amount of time getting up to speed on things that are only tangentially related to my job (No, here we need you to check all the boxes in the Jira ticket, ensure it's linked to a zephyr ticket, and ensure it's linked to a git PR - we don't care about you adding attachments or comments!)
> Doesn’t really tie in to actual markets involving physical item.
- A designer brand has admitted to destroying its own products. Coach confirmed that it purposely ripped up bags that were returned to its stores, even if the bags were still in good condition. https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/58846711
Monopolies and cartels are also well known for creating fake scarcity. Fake scarcity is bad for the economy and for consumers, only a few profit from fake scarcity at the cost of everybody else.
only to the extent that they are both artificial. The totality of USD _represents_ the totality of all resources that exist under the control of the USA (ala, the people, gov't, companies etc, as well as any natural resources).
The counterstrike skins don't represent such real life physical resources.
You're forgetting the other side of the equation, demand. The reason they have value is the level of demand versus supply. The item has to have some real world value, even if that's just being able to show off.
They're are plenty of things in very short supply, bit no one wants them.
Not really, but it's actually kinda like currency. Imagine if a government suddenly devalued all $500 bills into $100 bills, but every other denomination remained the same.
That’s not really what happens though. What happened was that 500$ bills where so rare in circulation that collectors started paying upwards of 20 100$ to get them. Valve went “yes the 500$ are too rare, we need to fix supply so we’ll start exchanging 5 100$ bills for one 500$ bill”
This had catastrophic impact on people hoarding 500$ expecting their exchange value to remain at the elevated levels.
Not really the same is it. You are confusing a stock and a flow. Currency is exchanged for something material you have to give up.
Government may indeed issue more currency, and does do so every day, but it is in exchange for something the private sector has that it wants for the public service. That isn’t a problem as tax is a percentage and operates as a geometric series - meaning that whatever government issues it gets back exactly the same - unless somebody along the way saves it.
There has to be something available to buy in a currency for it to be issued. As we see in the game.
Agents are uses on a Unix-based computer that is capable of and indeed was designed for multi-user collaboration.
Why not go for the simple solution?
reply