I don't think it happens quite that distinctly in the world we live in now (technology, etc.). It's not like a big tech company can go attain the same direct power as the East India company way back in the day. It's much more likely that companies continue to gain lobbying and "soft" power that directs the military into doing things. Large corps do have more money than many countries, so if a huge company wants to setup manufacturing or gain benefits in a smaller country they do have outsized power, but its rare that a huge company has more power than their own country from what I know (potentially oil companies are the exception which is why national oil companies seem to have so much weight in so many countries). For example sure the big tech companies are very powerful, but the US military budget per year is still nearly the same size as the largest tech companies market cap. Whereas you are right that a US big tech company has more revenue than say...Guatemala, or Morocco.
I dunno about defense as a service since those are pretty short range systems you mentioned (how would someone go "buy" excess capacity), but datacenters already cluster around common resources (water, etc.) so group buying some equipment to put in a ring around the datacenter area seems like it would be what they do.
Yeah the use consumer grade rocket components made SpaceX become viable compared to bloated rocket companies. Short range anti missile systems are not large ordinance, they rely a lot on technology for tracking targeting, and they are not a "weapon" (as in they prevent damage not cause it except inadvertently) so it actually seems like something pretty feasible for a tech company. Build it with consumer grade hardware and you could deploy a ton of them.
Rentable defense is already a thing, but rapidly deployable mini-interceptors like Anduril and many others, or electronic countermeasures could plausibly become much more widespread.
I guess I am splitting hairs but "spare capacity" heavily implies it's a non physical resource or it's able to be used in an instant. Almost like how if you had a global based missile system like a GBI (or not quite global but long range like a THAAD) you could near instantly have someone "bid" to use your missiles in an emergency scenario. Building short range interceptors and selling them or renting them is closer to the model of AWS itself, building a knowledge base hosting your own platform (Amazon.com retail) and then selling that knowledge to others. In this case building anti missile systems to protect data centers and then selling a packaged model to other companies. But it's not "spare capacity", it's selling expertise and helping to fund your own R&D.
>electronic countermeasures could plausibly become much more widespread.
don't forget the amount of power available in the datacenter. You can easily redirect say just mere megawatts to electronic countermeasures (would shut everything around down) or microwave and laser weapons. That for example is just 60KWt https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvQV7Mt02q4
Most places/countries/companies that value hard work tend to produce a lot, but I also wonder what goes on when it tilts too far and hard work becomes what you are measuring for. In the US for example there's still the vague idea that working hard is a virtue of sorts, but there's also an equivalent desire to produce something, be efficient, etc.
I haven't directly experienced Japanese work culture (just language and traveling) but it seems like they value hard work above all else, which makes innovation almost a threat. You might take away someone's opportunity to show "hard work" if you removed a difficult task.
> In the US for example there's still the vague idea that working hard is a virtue of sorts, but there's also an equivalent desire to produce something,
This is the root of a lot of busywork and bullshit jobs as well. People work hard producing something of little and often negative value.
Think of all the effort that goes into making competitive products, from life insurance and cellphone plans to airline tariffs difficult to compare. Compound that with advertising campaigns that don’t inform about the product or service they are selling. All that consumes colossal resources and deliver effectively negative value for society, for a market to be maximally efficient it needs informed consumers that can compare offerings.
Oh yeah no doubt. That kind of thing is just human nature to some extent. Anywhere where getting something done gets you promoted or paid more (which again is a necessary side effect of rewarding progress) tends to have cases where people are producing bullshit or inflating their real contribution.
Yeah I wonder about that sometimes, the maximal balance between efficiency and inefficiency. Some things are clearly a waste (like advertising as you mentioned) but then other stuff is part of innovation, and it's sometimes a bit fuzzy between the two. On paper it's wasteful that Mazda, Toyota, Ford, etc. all had to independently develop a sedan, yet it would be far worse if we only had one car company to choose from (far worse because of how monopolies inevitably stagnate).
> far worse because of how monopolies inevitably stagnate
Unregulated monopolies do, but regulated ones can be forced to innovate, both according to a plan, or through a process that internalises competition at the places where impact would be maximised (instead of multiple groups arriving at the same solution in secrecy, multiple groups exploring different possibilities while communicating between them and coordinating their efforts to avoid duplication).
I wonder sometimes if this is actually about the job as people say, or if it has something to do with that's convenient to ask. Your job is arguably one of the most public facing things about you, and is also somewhat impersonal. I've been other countries where they launch straight into "how many kids do you have?" (or plan to have), "how much money do you make", "what neighborhood do you live in" and I kinda missed just being asked about my job.
This is technically true in a lot of ways, but also intellectual and not identifying with what the comment was expressing. It's legitimately very frustrating to have something you enjoy democratized and feel like things are changing.
It would be like if you put in all this time to get fit and skilled on mountain bikes and there was a whole community of people, quiet nature, yada yada, and then suddenly they just changed the rules and anyone with a dirt bike could go on the same trails.
It's double damage for anyone who isn't close to retirement and built their career and invested time (i.e. opportunity cost) into something that might become a lot less valuable and then they are fearful for future economic issues.
I enjoy using LLMs and have stopped writing code, but I also don't pretend that change isn't painful.
The change is indeed painful to many of us, including me. I, too, am a software engineer. LLMs and vibe coding create some insecurity in my mind as well.
However, our personal emotions need not turn into disparaging others' use of the same skills for their satisfaction / welfare / security.
Additionally, our personal emotions need not color the objective analysis of a social phenomenon.
Those two principles are the rationales behind my reply.
I appreciate that rationale, I also see the importance of those two principles and I think there's a lot of value there.
I suppose I see "any idiot" as a more general phrase, like "idiot proof", not directly meaning that anyone who uses a LLM is an idiot. However I can also see how it would be seen as disparaging.
Also, while there's a lot of examples of people entrenching into a certain behavior or status and causing problems, I also think society is a bit harsh on people who struggle with change. For people who are less predisposed to be ok with change feels like a lot of the time the response is "just deal with it and don't be selfish, this new XYZ is better for society overall".
Society is pretty much made up of personal emotions on some level. I don't think we should go around attacking people, but very few things can be considered truly objective in the world of societal analysis.
After watching the movie "dark waters" about the whole Teflon scandal, seems like it should be the highest up person (or people) who had knowledge of the incident (obviously must be proven). An individual engineer knowing a car has a dangerous edge case isn't enough to get them in trouble in my view, especially if the company has claimed they are working on fixing it. Also legitimate mistakes are just mistakes, companies won't get it right every single time.
However there's cases where its completely proven that someone high up knew there was a systemic safety issue (they had a broad view and could see all the different areas of what was going on), they knew exactly what was causing it, and they do nothing because they want to keep the profit going. The fact those people don't go to jail just tells me that corporations have way too much leeway.
Your case sounds complicated so I'm not sure, but two things to note:
1. US is one of only a few countries where children emigrating with parents don't officially declare intent to immigrate, they do it automatically with their parents. This means that your grandfather (whether he was aware or not) was still German, since German law says you only give it up if you "take action to immigrate" or something like that. Likewise every child since then (your mother and you) were born as US citizens "involuntarily" (as in you didn't choose) so you also retained your citizenship.
2. In 2021 Section 5 of the StAG law was updated to say that people born to German mothers between 1949-1975 are now eligible, it was updated since male only was seen as discriminatory. So theoretically say grandfather -> mother (born to male) -> you (post 1949). Not an expert so double check this.
Im not an expert but my understanding of your case would be that you are not even needing to apply for status, you are literally German now, and just need to request a passport (check this with the resources on Reddit I mention below).
I'd recommend checking Reddit "German Citizenship by Descent" resources. There's a couple profile names you will see there really frequently who are German citizens who can help you in finding paperwork from German government resources if needed (old birth certificates, etc.) for a small fee.
This just feels like one of those things that can be completely loopholed. There's plenty of reasons why a company might find a specific software not profitable but also not want to open source it, so under this rule they will just host it on the most basic server possible (only concurrently supports like 50 users) and never update it again. Effectively still dead.
I don't think it's ambiguous, but I have been wondering how much LLMs model human behavior that we just don't recognize due to the subset of people on this site. I recently saw a comment online that "Mandarin isn't anyone's first language, people in China's first language is a dialect". It just struck me at that moment that people also hallucinate information confidently all the time.
Yes exactly. We are all wrong on occasion, but before I repeat something I perceive as important (or maybe not even important, just "factual") I tend to always want to try to verify it. Otherwise I'd say "I heard..." or something similar to caveat. Maybe it's an engineering mindset thing.
When you look into the edge cases developer productivity is really tough to understand. It's easy as the engineer yourself to see your own productivity as easy to understand, but if you are ever in the position of trying to assess someone's productivity that you don't work with day to day, its really difficult. There are people who are able to achieve millions in yearly savings with like 10 lines of code updated per year, perf debugging types. I'd never believe that up front if I hadn't seen it after the fact.
Its interesting to me that over the last 10 years of working in agile teams, not one team has analyzed burn rates to see if we are doing better/worse over time. Its like every sprint is a clean slate and no one actually gets better at their job...
reply