The function of a market is not the movement of goods, but the movement of prices.
This particular market is not functioning, or at the very least, it’s not functioning like a market for a commodity that has no particular resource limitations.
Makes me think of the classic yes minister national service scene, https://youtu.be/ahgjEjJkZks
Yeah, and not like it needs to eat radiation to be successful, all it has to do is survive in a place where everything else dies, and suddenly it has no competitors or predators, and is free to grow explosively.
Your image shows US as 434 billion and china as 285, which is a smaller gap than my source, but not completely different. It’s weird it’s not listed in order.
My source is:
As far as I know carbon brief are well respected and not a Chinese puppet, but I admit I that doesn’t mean they’re completely correct.
Edit: I see now that’s a little out of date. 2021.
They have an updated one from 2024, https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-chinas-emissions-have-now-caused-more-global-warming-than-eu/
Which doesn’t change my original assertion about the US having higher cumulative emissions, but does change the scale of the difference a bit, and discusses whether China will ever overtake the US (looks like it might be a toss up)
Worth noting the US is still ahead on total cumulative emissions, and if you adjust per capita (which is only fair), China doesn’t even hit the top 20.
Meanwhile, they installed more solar than the rest of the world combined last year.
Like, I’m not absolving them, they could be doing more, but right now they’re embarrassing us on how fast they’re pivoting.
If I could wire a calculator into my brain I would have cheated on all the maths tests tbf
Afaik that is handled through tool use in modern models (ie they didn’t learn to do maths, they learnt to use a calculator), assuming that’s true and I haven’t missed some advance, their conclusions are likely still relevant
Edit: though the article does seem to discard the chain of thought techniques a little readily, feels like they could come close to fitting the role of executive control, but perhaps that’s just the article lacking detail from the original work.
That’s true. I guess you just have to think you can keep up with the market, not necessarily beat it.
Not trying to be smug, just pointing out that a system that encourages self selection will tend to select for self belief, justified or not.
It’s inevitable, anyone wise enough to doubt their ability to outplay the market chooses not to try, the remainder all think they can
I think that’s a traditional part of anti-monopoly laws, shame nobody enforces those anymore
There’s a short story called Manna about this very concept.
Tldr: America goes with the cheapest possible option that isn’t outright murder, have the robots build a big concentration camp for the poors (ie everyone who didn’t have enough to buy their own robots) and keep them out of sight. Technically it’s a sort of universal social care, just not the kind you’d want.
Yeah. Worries me too. Maybe a more stable option would be to grow gog galaxy and other “opinionated” launchers so there’s competition but nobody is trying to burn the market down to earn a few more pennies…
They can be bad and that absolutely could happen, but I think steam is a rare example of a customer benefiting monopoly right now. Monopolies make the market less efficient and right now the most efficient market for computer games is enshitification galore, but valve is sitting in the way of that, manipulating the market and making games be less economically productive (by forcing them to be more pleasant for customers).
If we had 20 equally viable launchers/stores, it’d be a race to the bottom on price, which would force them all to enshittify or die
Daughter: wtf dad you ruined my sting operation, it took me months to find that arsehole and get all his passwords
All because Reagan felt their power trip was more important than maintaining safety in a system entirely dependent on maintaining safety.
The EFF… loves censorship?
You can complain they aren’t doing enough I guess, but you might as well say a pet shelter loves murdering puppies because they can’t save them all or a environmentalist loves emitting co2 because they support an economically viable plan for net zero.
They can probably use heuristics to keep the 0.1% most interesting traffic (eg traffic that flows towards servers that isn’t too large, that’d catch everything you send to your bank without breaking the budget to store)
And the only setting that will look the same across hardware and driver versions is dlss off, which I think was their point, what is yours?
I suspect a big goal of this refund policy is to make steam self moderating. Valve don’t want to have to police individual games more than absolutely necessary.
If devs can game it by giving players the completion achievement the moment they launch the game, suddenly valve has to step in to solve the problem, and they are far too busy enjoying their enormous profits to actually do work