I look forward to the people who always claim “taxation is theft” to comment on a single man deciding to strong arm a company into giving 10% to the government.
Isn't it the opposite of a bailout, given that the US gov't is seizing an ownership stake retroactively based on past grants/bailouts but giving no new money at this time?
CHIPS act is a grant similar to a small business grant, not a bailout at all. It was intended to incentivize chip production in the United States and was available to any company manufacturing in the united states. It had no equity strings attached, as authorized by congress.
> The government’s equity stake will be funded by the remaining $5.7 billion in grants previously awarded, but not yet paid, to Intel under the U.S. CHIPS and Science Act and $3.2 billion awarded to the company as part of the Secure Enclave program. Intel will continue to deliver on its Secure Enclave obligations and reaffirmed its commitment to delivering trusted and secure semiconductors to the U.S. Department of Defense. The $8.9 billion investment is in addition to the $2.2 billion in CHIPS grants Intel has received to date, making for a total investment of $11.1 billion.
So it kinda is something weird? It's not really a pure bail out, the Chips act already did that, and it's also not really a tax because they aren't going to get money out unless there's dividends. It's more like a power play which makes sense given that Trump is uncomfortable without anyone getting anything for nothing.
This is most definitely an invitation to abuse your phone’s battery, but at the same time I absolutely love this idea. It’s hilarious to imagine someone eagerly awaiting the chance to log onto the site as the battery dips from 8, to 7, to 6. “Just a couple more minutes…”
> What I tend to do is write stubbed out code in the design I like, then I'll get an LLM to just fill in the gaps.
This seems like an interesting approach, though to me it begs the question: what does "stubbed out code" look like? How much stubbing is done? Have you considered using pseudocode as comments within a larger "stubbed out" portion?
The importance of rules and context has begun to elevate its significance (...that is, if context wasn't always very important), and finding ways to articulate that context seems to be a skill of greater importance...
There is a track on musicforprogramming.net which has a passage of music punctuated by someone chewing loudly with their mouth open. I was deep in a flow state the first time this track started playing and the utter disgust was, as the title suggest, unbearable. I recommend jettisoning that track from your playlist if you, like I and this author, share this aversion
Interesting read. Time wasn't a variable I had considered missing from interactions with AI, but it makes sense.
I'd also add this: tools like the AI bots so prevalent today are flawed because they cannot consider things like context, limitations, dependencies and scope. I give a question...they attempt to spit out a complete answer with complete disregard for the context which my question is coming from.
AI fails in the same way a monkey can't drive a car.... abstraction. We humans know a red light ahead means stop at the stop light, not stop immediately where you are right now. All AI can do is make a best guess of what the inputs pattern-match to. This is like always having an answer without ever asking for clarification or context.
Exactly. What I consider a patch and definitely a symptomatic solution is "solved" via agents that search the web (e.g. asking for the weather forecast of this year - in that case the LLM cannot know the year I am referring to, if not via a web search).
Generally speaking, LLMs lack direct temporal awareness. Standard models do not model the flow of time unless explicitly. Some models can encode a model of time when trained on sequential video data and rely on external encoders to provide temporal structure. But that is a very narrow application (video in this example). That cannot be considered a generic form of awarenes of time as a concept through which facts can change.
Why this person specifically? And why at this time? Perhaps the discussion shouldn't be about the actual subject of the pardon, and perhaps more about the motives of the pardoner...
Trump came to the Libertarian Party convention and specifically promised to free Ross if he got their support. He actually promised a commutation; I wonder why he upgraded to pardon. He also promised a libertarian in his cabinet; oh well.
The LP chairwoman has made very interesting political moves this election.
Yeah, I'm pleased that Ross is out after serving over 10 years, but I wish it had been a commutation. He was guilty. The problem is the judge wildly over sentencing. Ten years served is about right for what he was convicted of.
Guilty of what exactly? Facilitating drug dealing? Something we both know is going to occur whether the nanny state permits it or not. Ross made it safer for those involved, and even those not involved. Inner cities are war zones because drug deals must be done in person. He deserves a full pardon.
And wouldn't it be better to oh, I don't know, enforce the standard corporate tax rate?