Have you tried google deep research? i'm curious how well perplexity compares to it.
I've been using Gemini Deep Research to replace my Google search since it does a web search and provides links you can check yourself to any citation that the resulting report uses.
until there's actual enforcement, there isn't the incentive to tell the truth...
It really is sad how much data has been captured and monetized of the average person. It seems like we're only continuing to turn up the heat as we continue to 'boil the frog'.
I thought that's why we have GDPR and similar laws, so you can enforce it? If the company says it deleted your data but it didn't it's definitely not complying with GDPR
GDPR requires data to be deleted where feasible. A common area where this falls apart is in backups made of systems implemented prior to GDPR rules, or systems which have not implemented a mechanism to allow user level deletion from backups.
There is a somewhat accepted pattern here where backup processes are updated to retain a list of users who have requested deletion, and when a restore from backup is performed, before the restored system is brought back online, the data of users who have requested deletion is removed.
As with many other compliance and governance controls, this is a known pattern, but is subject to review by auditors, and the overall pattern, or the specific implementation of the pattern may not survive a legal test via a complaint by a consumer or regulator.
GDPR can only be enforced by regulators. The bar for a valid complaint is quite high, and a company can lie and essentially remove your grounds for said complaint. And even once you do get a valid complaint in, it'll stay in limbo for years. Noyb has some info on the subject: https://noyb.eu/en/data-protection-day-only-13-cases-eu-dpas...
republicans wanna spend the way 'they want to' and cut every way the democrats want to spend, and just the opposite is true too (austerity only really matters when it's the other party with the control of the budget)
pair this with each district, state, and constitute company/nonprofit/whatever looking for a piece of the pie creates an utter mess of non-stop spending
While the US did have a better image under a democrats president, honestly the overall image and general/technical leadership of the US has been sliding. China has gradually been eroding the position of the US in various markets...now they're just rapidly eroding it under trump haha (ironically/deliberately his position is to curb said erosion).
I think you're focusing too much on the analogies he used instead of the thesis -- everything is aligning to a leader who isn't respected outside of the USA, much like kim jong un. That if saber rattling is the future of the US, then divestment will only increase and won't easily return. And further, the benefactors of this transformation is whoever doesn't have to adhere to our saber rattling which will be as many other countries as possible.
No; he's failed to engage in the pathos part of convincing -- he's whistle calling to his liberal readership base by implying the administration is dumb -- he's not seriously engaged with where the country is at, at least in this short essay lite.
I agree with you that saber rattling is a major change in foreign policy for the US. There aren't a lot of stops between "reserve currency" and "former reserve currency". That said, there also aren't a lot of options globally.
I think the benefactors of the saber rattling might be a little closer to Pennsylvania avenue than you suggest, though.
Sorry, I'm not being politically correct. Can I ask how many of the administration's executive orders you've read? This admin moved extremely aggressively on a such a large number of fronts that there are complaints that there aren't enough lawyers available at DoJ to defend all the lawsuits against the government. Strip all the rhetoric and attempts to dunk on the orange guy away from whatever side media you like to consume and ask yourself not what the stated goals of the admin were, but if there is a coherent and likely set of goals they had, and if they've executed on them.
From day one in the office these guys executed hard. Hundreds of executive orders. And if you read those orders, often up to half of them is calling out all the ways exec orders from 2016 were mutated or ignored and specifically banning them. They are in no way the work of dumb people. Legally and practically aggressive people? Yes. People with policies you might dislike or hate? For sure. People who are masters at engaging media and outrage? Yes. People headlined by someone who really loves self-enrichment and get-out-of-jail free rulings? Definitely.
Calling them dumb is radically misunderstanding the real situation in the whitehouse and to the extent journalists are calling them out as dumb it's because they're following the ball laid out by the street magician; watch the hands. The ball is all the sturm and drang and drama, the hands are actual practical outcomes.
On Signal -- the debrief there was truly hilarious; apparently Hegseth has an iPhone, that iPhone was using Apple's new and moderately shitty AI, the AI read an email (I think?) with two people's contact info in it, and offered to update the contact. Literally an Apple AI bug.
That said, I'm sympathetic to just clicking "update" on an ask like that from my iPhone. I don't think too hard about those if they pop up. Well, I didn't until I read the debrief. Geez Siri.
If that story is true and not, you know, complete bullshit to cover that Walz is one of the "off-the-record" sources that are American politics'constant news mill feeders.
My God, not only this administration is dumb, but you are too, and, in true Dunning-Krueger fashion, you think everyone but you is. Yes, I have read almost all the executive orders: they are challenged by "so many lawsuits there aren't enough lawyers at DoJ to defend" because they are stupidly written, are based on fantasies and aren't legally sound down to being patently unconstitutional. Nobody intelligent would have e.g. tried to revoque birthright through an executive order - a right protected by an amendment that has been confirmed again and again for more than a century; not only that, but the idea you could revoque a constitutional amendment by en E.O. wpuld that the same can be done for... The second amendment. Is that the can of worms this administration is trying to open?
These guys "executed hard" the whims of an incompetent, uneducated, psychopathic, certainly terminally senile President. Have you read Trump's speeches? Read, not listened to.
The only practical outcomes so far have been books banned from some Army libraries, websites changed, and posturing. What has been accomplished in practice? Very little: the tariffs are in Schrodinger's cat state, the expulsions are lagging far behind their targets, the Army is loosing soldiers and equipment (Hesgeth is only renaming things), the transportation secretary is more worried about biblical paintings than fixing air controllers shortages, etc. etc.
But yeah, tell me how those guys executed a "coherent" strategy wrt. foreign trade. What's the strategy again?
> The only practical outcomes so far have been books banned from some Army libraries, websites changed, and posturing
And countless abuses by police and ICE against immigrants with legal status and court orders protecting them. Being unconstitutional or otherwise impractical doesn’t stop the abuses. While EOs might be challenged, so will have the abuse instances. The goal is not to pass everything, but to overwhelm the defenses of their targets.
First thing to say is I distinguish Trump's personal goals from those of the people in his administration. I propose Trump's primary strategy/goal in the trade conversation is simple: create massive stock market volatility on a known schedule. It's super simple, it creates billions of dollars in value for allies and insiders, and it's dirt cheap to implement - just sort of talk a little to a news network, and voila, bob's your new billionaire uncle.
Internal admin policy wonk (Or Project 2025 insiders?) type strategy there seems to be to reset and expand the tools the State department has to work with -- it's been a long time since the US could credibly threaten war, for instance. That just doesn't sit right with some hawks.
Canadians took semi-seriously 51st state talks, enough that there are boycotts of American goods in Canada. Denmark took fairly seriously Greenland. Both of these took all of a day or two of talking to the media to get done, and in Canada at least will be grist for the mill in trade deals - having a crazy like a fox type throwing around random threats gives State some leeway.
Note that I'm not in any way condoning this strategy or saying it's perfectly (or well) executed, a good idea, or even that some or many people at the State Department like this strategy. But if you can get over blind rage on policy differences, a convicted rapist president, accepting gifts well in excess of the mandated $25 maximum, and on and on, and look at what they're saying and doing, I do think there's some coherence and execution in there.
Read those leaked signal chats -- that group is on the same page: They think the US is overpaying allies / getting a raw deal, and they want to set a clear message that they intend to change that. I think they got the message across.
Four years ago (or whenever it was that Musk was still thouoght a hero around these parts) you would have been downvoted into oblivion on this site for critiquing Tesla quality, so let's just all admit it's about politics.
I and many others will not support the megolmaniac that took a chainsaw to our federal government. Musk not only hired a bunch of palantir, ballet machine hackers, but he also ensured the many lawsuits against him were dropped, the investigations into his companies that should have cost him billions were dropped, and that his companies get $100s of millions of no competition government contracts.
Correct. I will not support Musk ever again, regardless of his current PR bombardment. Musk has shown who he is and now he will reap the rewards of that reputation.
100% true, although even if Musk wasn't toxic I wouldn't get a Tesla because of the poor build quality, touchscreen controls, and the overpromise/underdeliver history.
Tesla has always had very bad quality control and you can find stories about this for at least 8 years now. Here is one from 2020[0] and one from 2018[1]. Quality control has always been Tesla's weak point. It takes no effort to find these instead of being easily proven wrong.
I think the writer should have also taken a moment to reflect on the underlying _need_ that led to these revolutions. Each need is implicit to what's discussed in the table, but would be useful to help frame the discussion of the underlying questions that are discussed. For instance, going from IR3 -> IR4 created a _need_ of information management, where Google was the first major player in providing search as that means, now agents are taking the role of search & retrieval as a single action.
optimizing business value in the manner perpetuated by Friedman assumes you know more than you do and can adapt to things because of that knowledge, ultimately no one can actually do this because the world is chaotic and difficult to anything and everything that tries to master that chaos
On the contrary. Friedman argued that if as an executive you try to steer a business towards your particular personal aims that you are presuming to know more than you do about what is best for your shareholders who actually own the company. He is arguing that political whim is not a way to allocate the scarce resources of a company/society.
In particular the article linked in this blog post is Friedman arguing against Nixon's price controls and Nixon's insistence that it was "socially responsible" to not raise prices as you own costs went up. Stripping the article of this consequence is either dishonest, or stupid.
So my interpretation of how Friedman drew his theories of market (and granted I'm no expert, just a layman reading things online) are about every business should optimize as much as utterly possible even if this results in exploitation, because the market will accept exploitation until it can't and correct. I think you and i are aligned in this belief. Where i think we're separated, likely cause i just didn't explain it very well, was that to me, this means you as a CEO are accepting exploitation under the guise that you have the ability to react to the market forces to correct for it. That you 'know the market' and can adapt as needed. Such as described in the Friedman quote within the article which expresses an extremely libertarian view of how companies should be able to hire and fire workers:
> “...consider a situation in which there are grocery stores serving a neighborhood inhabited by people who have a strong aversion to being waited on by Negro clerks. Suppose one of the grocery stores has a vacancy for a clerk and the first applicant qualified in other respects happens to be a Negro. Let us suppose that as a result of the law the store is required to hire him. The effect of this action will be to reduce the business done by this store and to impose losses on the owner. If the preference of the community is strong enough, it may even cause the store to close. When the owner of the store hires white clerks in preference to Negroes in the absence of the law, he may not be expressing any preference or prejudice, or taste of his own. He may simply be transmitting the tastes of the community. He is, as it were, producing the services for the consumers that the consumers are willing to pay for. Nonetheless, he is harmed, and indeed may be the only one harmed appreciably, by a law which prohibits him from engaging in this activity, that is, prohibits him from pandering to the tastes of the community for having a white rather than a Negro clerk. The consumers, whose preferences the law is intended to curb, will be affected substantially only to the extent that the number of stores is limited and hence they must pay higher prices because one store has gone out of business.”
In my view, the scenario and reasoning by Friedman in how he applies market forces applying to business decisions is a view where you have an assumption of 'knowing the result' of any decision and using that 'knowledge' as justification for reasoning. When in reality, you don't know the result, you can estimate, but that's about it. So when an exec is applying Friedman principles they're trying to 'know the market' and that's a fundamental error in my mind due to the chaos of the world how it can manifest across all avenues of life.
> every business should optimize as much as utterly possible even if this results in exploitation, because the market will accept exploitation until it can't and correct.
I don't thing that's a correct assessment. He talks a lot about the need to follow laws an cultural norms and the importance of society setting normative guardrails for behavior. Moreover he point our I believe correctly that a lot of the worst behavior of businesses stem from monopoly power.
> In my view, the scenario and reasoning by Friedman in how he applies market forces applying to business decisions is a view where you have an assumption of 'knowing the result'
I think it only appears that way if you take small quotations like this out of context.
>> In my view, the scenario and reasoning by Friedman in how he applies market forces applying to business decisions is a view where you have an assumption of 'knowing the result'
> I think it only appears that way if you take small quotations like this out of context.
Can you help me understand this. Like the purpose of using logic to deduce decision making is because there's a fundamental structure in assuring the result from those deductions is accurate (or enough to continue manipulation of the problem data). When you try to predict market reaction to a decision and ascribe harm or success based on the decision you're creating causation out of correlation, often incorrectly. Again, not an expert in economics, but when i view theories of free market forces and how they're part of the logic of business decisions i can't help but think the people using this information are assuming their knowledge and logic aren't fundamentally flawed and as a result are essentially just guessing without thinking they are.
Yeah, Friedman would clearly agree that you can't have perfect knowledge but he argues that bad business decisions are punished with losses and firms' owners will fire bad managers or they'll lose their investments.
You're actually touching on why he argues against efforts to regulate negative harms, because the government has an imperfect ability to predict the outcomes and there isn't a great feedback mechanism.
ok i think i'm starting to get it a bit, the double edged sword is essentially the reason for focusing on emergent results which (i'm guessing in Friedman's mind) have more options for mechanisms for good results than a constrained market might.
Doesn't work for that site. Archive/Whatever only works if a site lets Google have free access so Google can index it and that one (like most off-brand news blogs) doesn't.
What it shows you is a progress report of what it is doing on the server. If you queue something for it to archive and close your browser and then come back later the page will be archived.
Instead of the ones(10^0)-thousands(10^3)-millions(10^6)-billions(10^9)-... system followed in most other parts of the world, the Indian numbering system uses ones(10^0)-thousands(10^3)-lakhs(10^5)-crores(10^7)-...
So, for example, half a million subscribers (500,000) would translate to 5 lakh subscribers (5,00,000).
It's the Indian English convention for placing commas in numbers -- one comma after the first three digits, then one comma after every two digits thereafter. e.g.
