That's why record companies traditionally did so well.

There are countless incredible works of art out there that almost nobody will ever see or hear. Most of it probably hasn't even been publicly shared.

I just watched a yt video of a guy who goes and looks for YouTube videos with zero views that are old. I thought that would make a great art project. I'm sure someone will eventually do it

Having to redo recordings once they break sounds like too much hassle.

Right now since we have a custom sandbox to re-execute the code in, we are using our own syntax and exposed methods. So even now you can edit the generated script.

Basically, the optimizing that can happen is that I ditch heavy tools in favour of lighter ones, and hopefully enough other people do the same to help lighter tools with finances/dev resources.

But software optimisation helps all hardware and that doesnt drive sales.

Linux however, they dont have to worry about that. Maybe it is finally the era of Haiku OS as the ghost of BeOS rises!

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.

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.

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...).

But that would require the teacher to be good at AI too. I think that's the problem here.

No, it shouldn’t. I’m not bearish on AI but it shouldn’t replace any part of a classroom where the objective is to learn and communicate in a new language (German). The typewriter argument is memorable and interesting - the article points out the lack of editing forces kids to slow down and think about their writing, as well as iterate through multiple drafts. It’s not a nostalgia thing, they’re not old enough to have ever used one before.

I could see an argument for adding on a new class for GenAI, agents, context engineering or what have you, but considering how behind current US curriculums already are and how quickly the AI field moves, I can only see this ending in wasted time and money: even an up to date class will be stale by the time it’s over. Kids will end up learning this anyway outside of the classroom, no use lecturing them on something they’ll already know.

You can do all the same learning with AI tools, with the added benefit of developing extra skills on top.

This notion that AI automatically reduces learning seems more born out of fear than reality. There are also different kinds of learning.

People who really want to can still go back to typewriters. Forcing it into a mandatory curriculum though is a step backwards. Just like it would have been pre AI.

You don’t give first graders a calculator because they will always have one in their pocket- they end up just inputting numbers in a magic box and not learning how to do this manually which will destroy their future mathematical education. It’s about the same with AI.

AI is not a gun that you can't put into the hands of a child. It's a paint brush.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbHB-rzKBAs

It's not perfect by all means but it does the job and fast. My code quality and output increased from using it.

Much better than hiding it away where it can't help anyone.

1 month later: whoopsie my lib got hacked and the hackers stole a bunch of stuff. Sorry guys.

It just wouldn't be good PR. And this is the best case scenario.

Never had an issue doing this

I’m not really talking about coding. I’m talking about autonomy.

What am I missing out on?