It is just that. Greed. They would do it on macOS too if they could get away with it, but they know they can’t and so don’t make the argument. What? macOS doesn’t require investment into the platform?
That alone settles the matter for me when the apologists inevitably show up.
The DOJ had started a lawsuit against Apple due to their rampantly greedy business practices, but who knows where that is going now since Tim Apple gave a golden trophy to the current president.
The things we need to get serious about are the easy to do thing (compared the sci-fi coded versions of geoengineering) we already know how to do, but are dragging our feet on: electrification, renewables, better insolation, more public transit, reducing red meat consumption.
Yes, producing EVs require massive amounts of resources.
Fixing public transportation in many cities is unbelievable low hanging fruit.
I live in Zürich and I’ve yet visited another city with the same level of public transport(Stockholm, maybe). And I travel 300+ days a year for work. London has pretty solid public transport, just need to improve its bus game.
I understand what you are saying. But it was the car lobbies who changed the culture.
> But it was the car lobbies who changed the culture.
A box on wheels is a box on wheels; fueled by hydrogen or rolling coal really should make little to difference to car manufacturers.
Following the 1970s UN acknowledgements of CO2 increases and projected issues it was really the fossil fuel funded lobbies that changed the culture, aggressively promoting bigger and bigger cars, more highways, and actively working against cities, counties and states that started looking into better public transport.
Americans for Prosperity (founded 2004) is just one of the many Koch affiliated advocacy groups / think-tanks of the past fifty years created to increase consumption (of Koch products) and decrease regulation (of Koch interests)
Being in the trans national energy and resource extraction game also meant that their fingers got into the workings of a number of countries, not just Canada and the USofA alone.
That’s how double standards work, there often isn’t a clear reason.
The art and audio is somehow seen as more important and something only humans should de in a game than the code and design, you know the actual game portion of the game.
I recently was sent patches for my open source space game[1] that added cascaded shadow mapping[1] and gravitational lensing[3] for black holes, both things that I've wanted for years, but found too difficult to tackle. The patches were made with Claude Opus doing pretty much all the work, guided by a human. The quality of the patches was, in my estimation, pretty damn good. It didn't do weird things, it used the infrastructure already present, it looked like what I wish I could have written. It was clearly not plagiarized in bulk, in as much as it was so well integrated with my existing code, though I imagine all CSM code/shaders and gravitational lensing shaders tend to look pretty similar, or at least do similar things. It was eye-opening to find out that Claude was capable of doing such a thing.
Neither of these changes affect the game play, they are both purely aesthetic in their effects, without introducing anything which might be called "art" in a traditional sense, unless you count crudely modeling the behavior of light in shaders and C code as "art", but at that point the distinction between code and art vanishes. I had previously had a "no-ai" policy in my codebase, just as a kind of over-reaction, and kind of, "if I ban it, then I don't have to think about it" response. But these patches... after studying them, there's just no way I wasn't accepting them.
For flash the input/output is the same, but the cache difference is big, you're paying 10x on >95% of your tokens.
For Pro, it's even worse, input/output is 4x and cache is 40x. The price different is really brutal. Yes you will still come out ahead by spending your first 10$/month on opencode go, but you will be saving a lot less than initially appears from their (60 USD for 10 USD pitch).
I really doubt that the either of the pro plans are subsidized heavily enough to support you swapping v4Flash for Terra, much less Sol.
$5/days is ~330 Mtok/day, that’s a nontrivial amount of work, and none of the gpts are more efficient than deepseek at $/task if deepseek meets your quality bar.
They do give a significant amount more than you would expect from the API pricing. The US provider API pricing has heavy margins by all accounts (and most are short enough of GPUs that there's little incentive to drop).
Is deepseek actually turning enough of a profit off inference to fully pay for training the next model? And do those profits depend on releasing model weights somehow?
All of the Chinese labs are publishing papers describing their models and each one contains actually novel approaches and solutions. In a few months when they surpass OpenAI and Anthropic, what will be the excuse then?
If we had deepseek v4 flash 0731 etched on a chip it would be more than capable enough and fast enough for so many people's needs, even hardcore engineer.
I think it’s tongue in cheek. When I first got access to Sonnet 4.5 I remember thinking to myself “y’know if they never got any better and I just had access to this forever then that would be pretty okay”. Turns out my expectations have changed since then and I would like a higher baseline now.
That alone settles the matter for me when the apologists inevitably show up.
reply