Enforcement is another things but photographers and artists have had ways to push back against illicit use of their work, notably by larger corporations. Licensing is an industry based on this protection alone.

The difference is that now, large corporations with plenty of money are able to just swallow other people’s work and pretend it’s “fair use” and derivative enough that they wash their hand of the fact that their models, that they charge lots of money for, would not be able to output anything they were not trained on. At least you could argue that a large image model would have a hard time creating a picture of a cat if it hadn’t been fed pictures of cats that belonged to other people than the company producing the model.

I don’t know if training on the world’s data without compensation is fair or not. There are valid arguments both ways, but as an individual, it should still be your choice whether you want to allow your work to be used in ways you do not agree with.

I think people at large expect at least recognition, and if possible, compensation, for their creations.

When a consumption system is built around providing neither, I don’t think we should be surprised that people feel slighted.

Is this true? Remember that Harlan Ellison plagiarism case, the nightmare he went through to get a payout? It seems the vast majority of times, when a corporation decides it wants to use something you created, it gets to just do so because it has more capital than you.

Yes, it is.

I'm a previous career, I was a professional photographer. I spent a lot of time chasing after companies that operated with the "if it's in the internet, it must be free" mindset. The right letters, sent the right way, to the right people almost always gets things fixed.

In one example, a very major bank used one of my photos as the cover of a corporate report. That mistake paid my rent for a little over a year.

Like I said, the right message sent to the right person in the right way works 90% of the time.

This comes from actual experience, not just some rando second-guesser on the internet who thinks his suppositions are truth.

Assuming China takes TSMC in one piece (unlikely without internal sabotage in the best case scenario), it would still probably take years before it produces another high end GPU or CPU.

We would probably be stuck with the existing inventory of equipment for a long time…

The risk with China taking over Taiwan is that they mostly expedite their own production research by a couple of years.

Anyone trying to spin up a competitor to TSMC would have to first overcome a significant financial hurdle: the capital investment to build all the industrial equipment needed for fabrication.

Then they'd have to convince institutions to choose them over TSMC when they're unproven, and likely objectively worse than TSMC, given that they would not have its decades of experience and process optimization.

This would be mitigated somewhat if our institutions had common-sense rules in place requiring multiple vendors for every part of their supply chain—note, not just "multiple bids, leading to picking a single vendor" but "multiple vendors actively supplying them at all times". But our system prioritizes efficiency over resiliency.

A wealthy nation-state with a sufficiently motivated voter base could certainly build up a meaningful competitor to TSMC over the course of, say, a decade or two (or three...). But it would require sustained investment at all levels—and not just investment in the simple financial sense; it requires people investing their time in education and research. Dedicating their lives to making the best chips in the world. And the only reason that would work is that it defies our system, and chooses to invest in plants that won't be finished for years, and then pay for chips that they know are inferior in quality, because they're our chips, and paying for them when they're lower quality is the only way to get them to be the best chips in the world.

They have the other system.

> A wealthy nation-state with a sufficiently motivated voter base could certainly build up a meaningful competitor to TSMC over the course of, say, a decade or two (or three...).

They just need to blockade Taiwan.

Have you seen how many states and countries look enviously at Silicon Valley’s tech companies, China’s manufacturing dominance, or London’s financial sector and try to replicate them?

Turns out it’s way harder than you’d expect.

Hell, Intel can’t match TSMC despite decades of expertise, much greater fame, and regulators happy to change the law and hand out tens of billions in subsidies.

I can’t help but be cynical and think that Google profited so much from the scam that they just turned a blind eye to the manipulations.

I appreciate that you provided multiple OS versions rather than just go for Mac only like some.

This is also a major base of French cuisine and called Mirepoix.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirepoix?wprov=sfti1

Reviewing drawings for incompleteness, contradictory informations, deviations from standards, etc and making recommendations would be very valuable.

It doesn’t need to be perfect to be useful.

For instance, the Leica M series have specific monochrome versions with huge resolutions and better monochrome rendering.

You can also modify some cameras and remove the filter, but the results usually need processing. A side effect is that the now exposed sensor is more sensitive to both ends of the spectrum.

Not an Apple fanboy, but I was under the impression that having access to up to 512GB usable GPU memory was the main feature in favour of the mac.

And now with Exo, you can even break the 512GB barrier.