I'm also working with non-profits on LLM monitoring, in the climate space.
What I appreciate about what you've done here is looking at the gaps, we're much more focused on what's being said. I'm already thinking of how we could integrate that sort of analysis into our work.
I'd love to compare notes. I'll hit you up via the contact form on your site after discussing with client.
Jensen's the most pro-open weight guy and calmest on China public figure at that level.
Musk has done, and continues to do, the most horrific stuff, including things far more questionable from a US security perspective. Altman's reputation is not one of honesty and fair dealing. We've had very clear evidence of Microsoft's leadership being caught in honey-traps by foreign governments. No heads rolled.
> Tin foil hat take: I think Jensen's been sniped.
I think this statement has a real risk of turning into a motte and bailey argument.
If you are only alleging that people are gunning for him, that’s true for every CEO and powerful person on the planet. People have things to gain from exploiting their positions.
My reading comprehension must be bad, I could not find a single reference to "Microsoft's leadership being caught in honey-traps by foreign governments" in those links (or in the links of the sibling comment.) Could you maybe provide a quote?
1. China, to take down one of the keys to Nvidia's success and potentially sabotage US dominance in AI and hardware, right as they've started their own.
2. The US gov, who may have been worried about Jensen's "loyalty".
3. The US gov, who were previously skimming money off of illegal sales but now need to do performative justice to prevent themselves from being held accountable after the change in governance last week.
4. A coordination between the US gov and AI firms, who may not have appreciated Jensen's open-ness toward open models and likely refusal to install firmware-level blocks for "unapproved" models.
The term "performative justice" seems to be a theme, and reminds me of "Hegseth awards medal to soldier who reprimanded him and aides at Arlington Cemetery."
Big CEO has affair, even with the intelligence angle, is pretty routine kompromat fodder.
The normal pathway would be that this would be disclosed to said horny capitalist via state security, with the understanding that they'll behave in certain circumstances and that it will be ensured that things go no further. This is a win for Uncle Sam.
That this didn't happen is telling. Obviously, cui bono gives quite a long list, but the state would have needed to be on side.
The others do not have a board capable of outing them. It has, in fact, been tried and discussed at length.
It's not a conspiracy, this is what happens when you don't give one person total control through manipulating the board and stock. You fuck up and get the axe.
Yeup. Didn't want to go into all of it, but that's basically what I was referring to.
This is, in theory, feature not a bug territory. Your CEO did something they shouldn't of (allegedly). The board now fires them rather than having the stock and the company ride or die based on it.
Will the short term stock suffer, sure. Will the company do better for it, maybe/maybe not? I don't totally agree with one great man but I get the idea and once you start working at a certain level you do see products often as a reflection of the values of the top of the chain.
Either way, there's no doubt this is a complicated and "unique" circumstance given the behavior of the US government, and I wouldn't be totally shocked if he DID knowingly break the law and did so with the help of the POTUS, and that's an entire quagmire.
The board/company distancing itself from that makes sense, and bluntly, it's not like jensen staying on was going to save the stock or AI. This is a symptom of what's going on not the cause, and him somehow not being voted out likely changes nothing, even for the board or NVIDIA who are all going to have uncomfortable questions about behavior and decisions even with Jensen out the door. Hell it might be the best place for him.
That's why they should all stay. And ideally export the corruption and stupid business culture to China so they get hit too. I want a world that's not dominated by one or two powerful countries.
Yep. More accurately, Amodei’s wife wanted to be connected to Epstein (after he had pled guilty) - but he turned her down!
> An earlier venture, adult-film company Eddice, drew Clark into contact with Jeffrey Epstein. In 2011, she emailed Epstein a film script seeking investment, according to documents released by the Department of Justice in 2026. "We thought you and the ladies might enjoy," she wrote. Epstein did not invest.
Hmmm I don't know like limiting Starlink on Urkainian drones? Like repeatedly meeting with Putin and failing to disclose it? Failure to report foreign contracts? The fact that he was denied Special Access Program clearance (we don't know why)? The fact that he has over $1B in loans from state controlled Chinese banks? Campaigning on behalf of the far right AFD party in Germany?
The drone thing is uninteresting. But the others I haven't heard about. Do you have reliable sources for these? The problem with anti-Musk stuff is that 99% of the time it is overblown sniping from media hungry blowhards or oil industry lobbyists, and has been since 2012 when he launched the Model S at Tesla. But, I'm open to considering real problems. His time at DOGE was definitely dodgy (but the falling out between Trump and Musk was epic cinema.)
The difference between Musk and Huang is that Musk has engineered such control of his companies through dual class listings that there really is no one who can fire him. Having said that, people are very openly talking about the fact that Musk is going to spend the next couple of years spending quality time with the US congress explaining in minute detail why he's not a traitor.
The other big difference between the two is that after the last election, Musk (with Trumps help) essentially put himself in a position where he basically controlled the federal government for 6 months and did whatever he wanted with no consequences. It's a lot easier to commit crimes when you fire all the people who are trying to stop you..
I spent a lot of time in Georgia, where rudica hybrids are very common. Makes for a nice smoke, not as heavy as big name strains, and hardy and easy to grow.
I rent a workspace outside of my home, I'm paying less than 150 quid for a room in a light industrial zone. Gives me space for my fun stuff as well as work. I love having my own space, and it's very affordable.
I was just looking at the prices for city centre commercial rental in my nearest town. Huge spaces available, it's generally more per month, and I'd be worried about the rates threshold, but at a lower price point we'd be in business.
I think there's something to that. More people using a centre for work would create more opportunities in towns.
Again, I think the challenge the UK has is the gross differential between incomes and the cost of buying or renting property. Unsustainable, and very much part of these morbid symptoms.
They sell something that doesn't work so well online or at a supermarket. Ditto barbers, phone repair, or whatever racially-coded tabloid bugbear de jour. They work in a town centre, everything else can't beat the prices set by larger (often American-owned) businesses.
You can buy a vape online, but as a smoker, you don't want to wait a day when you've run out. Also as a smoker, I don't get why they're not regulated like tobacco. They shouldn't be sold alongside sweets, and should otherwise be treated like cigs (e.g. on packaging, licensing, advertising etc.). Seems very low-hanging legislative fruit.
Aye, but there's a big difference between nicotine and caffeine in terms of addiction potential, and the long-term risks of vaping aren't well understood.
They shouldn't be sold as sweets, which is very much how they're sold in the UK. Plain packaging, behind the counter, licensed. Not unreasonable I don't think.
Is it? I've heard of people getting good results with PLA and a 0.2mm nozzle. I don't doubt resin is better, but PLA seems to be acceptable to a lot of people. And it's far safer and cheaper.
There's a documentary, "The Last Mountain", about the sister and father of Tom Ballard, who died on Nanga Parbat, going out there to see where he did his final climb. It gives an idea of what it is like to visit.
Incidentally, Tom Ballard was the son of Alison Hargreaves, who died on K2.
Ukraine is to WW3 as Belgium was to WW1. A hot, stagnant land war in the heart of the continent.
This piece is one of several I've noticed lately in the British press [1, 2], preparing the country for a broader war.
I'm deeply fucking concerned, to be frank. I'm also upset that no major political actor seems to be putting their hand up and suggesting this might be a terrible idea.
Both can be characterised as long-running, festering land wars on our continent, causing immense destruction and going nowhere fast.
Both were about an outsider trying to rewrite the terms of system from which they felt excluded. WW1 was loosely states with an empire vs. those without.
Both have involved massive miscalculations on all parts as to how quickly and easily this will be over. Russia thought Ukraine would fold, NATO thought Russia would.
We need to be realistic here. This is bad and could get substantially worse.
> Both have involved massive miscalculations on all parts ... We need to be realistic here. This is bad and could get substantially worse.
Jeffrey Sachs has been shouting about this from the rooftops from day one, but the "Western Bloc" has been ignoring him at their own peril. It is almost as if they want to force a WWIII, nevermind the suffering of the Ukrainians!
There are plenty of Youtube videos of his speeches, a couple;
> Russia thought Ukraine would fold, NATO thought Russia would
leaked assessments from the beginning of the war showed that the CIA thought Ukraine would fall in < 1 year and would lead to an insurgency that would last a decade and bankrupt Russia while still having oodles of warcrimes.
warcrimes are still there but instead the AFU is causing serious infrastructure damage to to the Russians.
I think it's fair to be sceptical about some of the comment coming from the UK defence sector - much of it seems aimed at encouraging an increase in spending without first improving the (incredibly wasteful) state of defence procurement.
The comparison with WW1 is instructive in that regard. Then, the view that conflict with Germany was inevitable was surprisingly widespread - particularly in the wake of Agadir, though it had been steadily building over a couple of decades. It's just that the nature and scope of the conflict that caught them by surprise - a land war rather than being primarily naval.
Vast amounts of money had been poured into building up the navy (always controversial - Gladstone's final premiership was ended by his opposition to a 'vortex of militarism', and Lloyd George and Churchill made similar arguments 15 years later) but those very expensive warships spent most of the conflict at anchor. Most of the pre-war spending was essentially wasted.
If we were to double our defence spending today, we might well end up pissing it up the wall on the same old mix of Trident, aircraft carriers, helicopters, unworkable AFVs, and the most limited carrier variant of F35 when the actual threats are cyberattacks, disinformation, and a variety of hybrid attacks.
« The comparison with WW1 is instructive in that regard. Then, the view that conflict with Germany was inevitable was surprisingly widespread »
What is surprising about that? The Northcliffe propaganda press and writers such as H.G. Wells had been nurturing the idea of the inevitability of war with Germany for years, so, unless they really sucked at propaganda, at least some "positive effect" would be the expected outcome.
« It's just that the nature and scope of the conflict that caught them by surprise - a land war »
Maybe, in some respect. But they had factored in the armies of France and Russia, hadn't they (in 1904 and 1907 already), so they were certainly expecting some land war scenarios.
The reason they didn't tell their people they were willing to sacrifice them on the order of a couple hundred thousands may have had to do with the lack of popular support for such an honorable prospect.
What I appreciate about what you've done here is looking at the gaps, we're much more focused on what's being said. I'm already thinking of how we could integrate that sort of analysis into our work.
I'd love to compare notes. I'll hit you up via the contact form on your site after discussing with client.
reply