It is natural to not see something that isn't there. The article isn' comapraing the two in application or functio

> I think that's a thinly veiled excuse for a much more mundane reason this is happening; their government stakeholders asked them to find a way to retaliate as part of the arguments around trade going on, and Airbus figured this out as a lever they could pull without angering any airline customers.

Even more mundane reason would be the USA threatening war.

> it's only a problem if you're not willing to go and strike up conversations with people.

It is not a problem if there are other people willing to also go and strike up conversations with people. That is why GP wrote that it is a systemic problem that can be solved on a personal level.

> Expecting society to come up with "systemic situations" to your personal problems is a fast path to a lifetime of disappointment.

It is not a personal problem. It is a systemic problem. Are you conflating on purpose or do you not understand the difference?

And it is a systemic problem, all you need to do is look at the data.

> No, they're OK with Google apparently not changing much of anything and being allowed to continue operating so long as they pay the fine first.

But google did change how they do things thanks to this case thus making everything you wrote some anti-government fiction.

Why can't it be both? After all GP did not give any definitions. He simply and clearly stated:

> The end goal shouldn't be "monopolies, but European", the end goal should be no monopolies.

Ha, you just reminded me of something that I read a long time ago. Some history book which relayed a story from some part of islamic world from centuries ago.

A king goes hunting but fails to catch anything. Hungry, he goes to a nearby village. He enters the inn and orders some quail eggs. After finishing the meal, he goes to pay. The innkeeper tells him that the meal costs ten gold coins.

"I did not know quail eggs were so rare in these parts," says the king.

"They are not," replies the innkeeper, "but kings are."

> -> More people have died in the EU from heat waves due to lack of air conditioning than gun violence in the US. Ratio is worse if you remove suicide gun death.

That is mostly on how heat deaths are counted in eu vs usa. In usa heat must be mentioned as a cause of death on the certificate but as those who die in heat waves mostly have underlying issues heat is rearly put as cause of death. In the eu you don't need heath mentioned on the death certificate to count it as a heath death, they count excess deaths.

Downvoters aren't being silly, it's about you not considering the context of the discussion when writing your first reply. Deepseek wasn't mentioned once in this thread before your second post and AI was mentioned once in a list of different industries. Those should have been a clue to why your first post was downvoted. Basically, you wrote a non sequitur post and are surprised that it is being downvoted.

DS4 is open weights so it could even be run free in quantized forms, is 10x cheaper than Opus and performs basically as well in most real world tasks. No one cares about benchmarks. In practical terms, it’s obviously a better option in most cases.

You’re defining “better” is “absolute best at any cost” instead of the more balanced price/performance considerations consumers actually take, so you can declare America #1 again. In a practical sense DS4 is so much cheaper at similar quality that it’s better in most cases. If i can throw 10x the tokens at the same problem at slightly lower quality, i can probably do a better job.

ELO is an absolute rating. You could make a claim about some unknown GM being "better" than Magnus Carlsen because his appearance fee is cheaper, but obviously nobody would take you seriously.

There is a best model, and then there is what you can afford. Call that the "better value" or something if you must, but calling it the "better" model is clearly spreading a falsehood.

Never heard of Gazzaniga before reading above comment, its quite fascinating.

The brain, its left hemisphere, makes up the narrative.

Sorry my comment was unclear. My point is, the process of “making up a narrative” does seem to imply a subjective experience, doesnt it? My point is, the existence of the experiencer can’t be denied. Even if the experience itself is some kind of illusion, theres no coherent way to say that there is no entity having an experience. Every attempt to do so ends up implying the existence of an experiencer (the one having the illusion of experiencing)

I think you've missed my point, which was about epistemology and dogma, given that you continue to repeat the dogma in question. Did you read my comment at all? To engage with my argument you'd have to confront the idea that your current assumptions will continue to be "the truth" hitherto, which it doesn't look like you've attempted to address at all.

To continue the ancient Greeks' mirror analogy, this would be akin to continuing to say "but who's eyes am I looking in then?" when I suggest that people in the future may not think there is a double of your soul in there. Totally pointless, and frankly, quite frustrating.

I think youve missed the point which is that your objections still imply an observer. Your rudeness is unnecessary and I wont be continuing this conversation. Have a good day.

Go look directly at the sun without any protection or go listen to sounds of 120dB if you want to test your hypothesis that light and sound can't be unhealthy.

Or maybe you aren't being litteral and are just saying that what children see and hear has no influence on their developmemt. Either way, total bullshit.