The assumption that the Anglo idea of being well mannered, quiet and not rowdy at such an event is wrong IMO. The Roman upper classes probably got loud and very obnoxious by our standards, but assuming that the Romans perceived that as “low-class” is probably not correct
Cohere is doing a lot of enterprise AI business, and a lot of business directly with the federal government. They are also not juiced up in these financial games that OpenAI or Oracle are playing.
Additionally, Cohere is no less “kids” than Anthropic or OpenAI. Aidan was literally one of the co-authors of “Attention is all you need”.
No doubt some amazing engineer's work there, but there are little to no adults in the room at that business as far as I can see, and sure they like to tweet about how well they are doing, and I keep hearing this line that they're selling to enterprise, uh, who, Canadian tire? If they actually have more than $150mm in revenue I'd be amazed, and $150mm revenue is still, not at all impressive.
>The authors of the paper are: Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan Gomez, Łukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. All eight authors were "equal contributors" to the paper; the listed order was randomized.
Intern or not, it still sounds like he contributed substantially.
The goal of these rules is to reduce corruption and theft. A lot of these rules go out the window when there is a need for speed. The goals have obviously changed: the US Gov believes the world is on a path to war again, and is reforming on that assumption.
This is the wrong take. Economic dependence on China is a massive national security threat. Exporting your manufacturing base to a nation that opposes the fundamental values of a nation is completely suicidal, and if war ever occurs, you’re toast. China is increasingly belligerent with their excess industrial capacity, engaging in dumping and overproducing to cut out competing non-Chinese manufacturers. They engage heavily in IP theft.
Allowing critical manufacturing supply chains to move to China is stupid.
> Exporting your manufacturing base to a nation that opposes the fundamental values of a nation is completely suicidal
How do you feel about integrating your manufacturing base with a nation that opposes the fundamental values of our nation, and constantly fantasizes about annexing our nation?
Unless you're arguing for Canada to make its own EV manufacturing industry independently from both China and America?
The problem is that as of now, the dependence on USA is more destabilizing. It is a country that has fundamental values difference against Canada, threatened Canada just recently and if war occurs, it is huge issue for Canada.
What's the alternative to Canada? To be depended on the states who, very openly, threaten them on every possible occasion?
Unfortunately, it's not 2000s/2010s anymore, and rules of the game have changed. Most countries realize that there is a future that's not purely Pax-Americana (including USA as well). Sovereign nations will choose what's best for them and their future, especially in the cases of a neighbouring bully.
Palmer Lucky touched on this last week - how China would love to slowly winnow away American automobile manufacturing capacity, because that capacity would be converted to wartime production in the event of a large scale war.
Serious question: hasn't the western world largely exporting their manufacturing base to China for everything, just not EVs/batteries? There is a major conflict here between corporate profits vs national security. Consumers generally don't care about vague concepts like national security if it makes things cheaper.
It’s a tragedy of the horizon (if I may use the term coined by the Prime Minister). Basically, corporations and democratic countries are more focussed on the short term, such that long term concerns like national security, climate change etc… are not appropriately integrated into risk models.
China has been a stable and reliable trading partner with Canada for a long time. Canada is far too small a country to produce everything it needs within it's own borders. If anyone ever declares war on Canada then we're toast, so we're best not going out of our way to make enemies with the world's dominant superpowers –one of which is actively threatening our sovereignty.
China is always willing to dump, tariff and subversively coerce its way into hollowing industries. This is not stable nor reliable. It is aggressive and a national security threat.
They infiltrate civil society through their networks of “police stations” and the Confucius Institute with the aim of placing sycophants in positions of power.
They aren’t our friends, and Canadian civil society needs to recognize that.
It's been 20 years, what cheap Chinese goods have raised in prices? The china dump accusation is retarded at this point, the reality is PRC is manufacturing superpower who permanently reduces costs for the simple reason they need affordable prices for domestic market that incidentally makes them stupid competitive. Now if your argument is we should erect protectionist walls to protect industrial base, that makes sense. But Canadian auto base is tied to US and US doesn't want to share anymore which means dead Canadian auto. The option left is to take cheap Chinese EVs, do some sort of Canadian JV where we capture some value vs potentially losing car manufacturing completely. PRC probably fine with that, their "dumping" is selling cars abroad for 2x domestic MSRP, they can feasibly live with splitting that 2x while US wants it all.
They especially aren't our friends if we go out of our way to make enemies with them. Why would we do that? It doesn't make any sense. It's a small world, China isn't going anywhere, we're stuck living on the same planet as them. They aren't going to have less of an influence on our affairs in the future going forward.
Canada has a long standing problem. The only thing we've ever been good at is natural resource extraction. Ironically we have several world class universities producing very talented people and IP, and the vast majority of it goes to the states to make money. Then here in Canada we carry on digging stuff out of the ground.
First, dependence on the US hasn’t exactly worked out very well for us the past year. As a smaller nation, Canada has to be dependent on its trade with more powerful nations, and that comes with risks regardless of what nation we’re dependent on.
Second, I don’t buy your fear mongering about China. There’s not much fundamentally different about China and western nations in 2025. They’re a capitalist society prioritizing growth at all costs, same as every other western nation. China is not interested in war, and has stated that consistently over the years.
Third, as far as “critical manufacturing supply chains” go, extremely inefficient luxury personal vehicles don’t fit that definition.
Canada already isn’t economically independent. Diversification is fine, especially if it saves costs that can then be deliberately redirected towards improving sovereign capabilities. Right now we have the worst of both worlds, we pay top much for stuff or can’t get it, and remain completely dependent on the US and China.
We could and should further diversify by removing whatever barriers are keeping European cars out.
Europeans want to protect their local car companies but Canadians don't have any. The best they can hope for is a branch from a foreign country setting up a local factory to make cars for the local population.
The neoliberals didn't care about national security when they shifted the manufacturing and jobs to China for profit. They were outplayed by the Chinese.
My anger lies with the neoliberal elites not the Chinese. The elites can go die on the battlefield. Its their mess.
You need to understand: for every tariff the US places on China, the more excess industrial capacity that China needs to direct elsewhere. It goes for steel, autos and more. This means, since America sanctioned Chinese steel, China has been dumping their steel into Canadian markets. With the excess electric car capacity unable to be absorbed by America, China wants to direct it elsewhere. If they start exporting to Canada, this excess capacity will completely destroy automotive manufacturing in Canada, leading to mass layoffs and entire industrial supply chains falling apart. This will inevitably lead to political instability as a large portion of second tier cities in Ontario start having a labour crisis.
This is evidently not ideal. I bore witness to manufacturing completely leave my hometown, third tier city over the span of a decade. Today, there is little economic opportunity in that town, with massive drug abuse, and petty crime. It used to be a nice place, and working in a factory earned you an honest living. Unfettered trade with China killed places like this, destroying an entire generation.
At the end of the day, wanting electric cars from China depends on your values, do you want incredibly cheap electric vehicles, even if it means destroying an entire industry that the largest province in the country relies upon? Or do you want to maintain a functional manufacturing base that is critical to political and social stability?
The outsourcing of American manufacturing was done by the American Corporate Elites. I hope some of your anger is directed towards them.
Lutnick has already stated that America wants all vehicles for sale in America to be built in America. Any vehicles built outside America will be tariffed.
Sure, the Chinese will destroy Canadian any auto-manufacturing left for the domestic market, but it is the Trump administration's stated goal to dismantle the Canadian auto-sector, which is happening now.
According to who? That's not the most common justification provided for them, the more common refrain a bag full of lies about what a tariff is and what a trade deficit is.
Pretty dishonest. There is nothing about curbing consumerism there. Just telling people that they will HAVE TO buy less if consumer prices increase, in order to hurt China.
Lol, are you serious? Can you elaborate on your thinking here? Are you suggesting Trump imposed tariffs out of some altruistic goal of reducing waste or the social impacts of consumerism?? That can't be right. What is the motivation in your mind?
You can support some of trumps policies while thinking the insurrectionist peadophile should be behind bars
You can also support tarrifs in principal but not support the way they have been implemented (club not calpol, used as a political weapon or to extract mafia style favours)
The post being replied to says "the tarrifs", clearly referring to the current set of tarrifs implemented by this admin, not the concept of tarrifs in general, otherwise they'd have just said "tarrifs".
What's being pointed out is the retcon that "the whole damn point of the tariffs" is to end rampant consumerism. It's clear that the grand^{n}parent poster is flailing about and desperately trying to find the comfort of some coherent and intentional narrative behind a set of inherently incoherent and unintentional actions.
If your manager at work acted like a legit insane person, but said one true thing, you wouldn't be there saying that he/she is smart in that particular area.
If by some chance in hell tarrifs actually work, its due to pure luck, not due to any strategy. Which is what the original person I am replying to made it seem.
I know we don't want HN to devolve into political bickering, but this is a deeply important meta-observation about what's happening in our country right now. Trump's stochastically random decisions are so inscrutable, but his following is so cult-like, that his followers are forced to flail around to try and find any plausible justification for these actions.
You'd think that at some point the sheer effort of this would trigger some sort of introspection, but it never seems to come. Someone, somewhere, latches onto an explanation that's catchy enough, vague enough, and impossible to disprove enough, that the tribe can take the explanation at face value and latch onto it, no matter how thin.
I hate that this is somehow is still viewed as political, when the topic has moved far past that to the point where you are arguing with conservatives that can't comprehend actual reality.
Cars are bad, but there are far more people driving a car than working in the automobile industry. The former has a better claim to societal health than the latter.
Cars are good in some circumstances, mass transit, in other circumstances. One size does not fit all.
Small, inexpensive cars would also be good in some circumstances, but the US auto industry, for some reason, struggles to offer something as compact as Honda Fit, or at least something as reliable as Toyota Corolla.
"tabac" feels too restrictive, "Épicerie" feels more like selling fruits/vegetables, "commerce de proximité" feels like it could include things like a supermarket too.
I can think of more unsavory/xenophobic/slang terms for it, but droguerie seems more appropriate.
And on the other end for someone who never been to Québec, "Je vais au dépanneur" sounds like "I'm going to the mechanics (to fix my car)". Very creative.
Le mot dépanneur peut désigner :
[…]
au Québec, une petite épicerie de proximité ou une supérette.
en Suisse romande, une petite épicerie ouverte les soirs ou les week-ends.
[…]
God forbid the language evolves independently in two regions separated by an ocean.
I find it funny that in France it’s more common to see anglicisms (parking, le weekend) whereas in Quebec more “francized” terms are more common (stationnement, fin de semaine). And then Francois Legault goes and in a speech praising the work of the French language watchdog says “faut faire la job”. Facepalm!
They do. Security is about risk management. It’s all very actuarial. If the damages from an attack are severe enough (ie. a company makes it go bankrupt), that’s capitalism working.
