I don't think people appreciate that this is the normal cycle of the Chinese tech innovation ecosystem, and one that supports the Chinese government's goal of rapidly creating a world class capability at any expense. If you think of the classic program triangle of cost, schedule, and capability, they sacrifice cost to accelerate schedule and capability. It is actually a very effective system for achieving their goals, taking the best of competitive markets but with strong state supervision and macro capital inefficiency.

This is how the cycle goes. The central government gives direction on broad technologies and industries it wants to promote. Local and regional government investment funds and private capital flood the market to support dozens if not hundreds of startups not just to make money but to demonstrate commitment to the central government's vision. You create a hyper-cutthroat market (described by one scholar as a massive gladiatorial game) with rapid advancement and tremendous innovation albeit at a cost of substantial waste in terms of capital wasted on unprofitable, excess capacity that the domestic economy can absorb. These firms then flood the global market at cut-rate prices to try and survive but bankrupting all non-Chinese firms on the market in the process, leaving China dominant in the market. In the meanwhile, you get to a point where inevitably, most of those firms go bankrupt or consolidate into a few winners which the government puts into a "gilded cage." These firms are national champions promoted and protected by the central government in exchange for supporting government priorities and initiatives.

We've seen this in multiple markets, from microelectronics to e-VTOL to drones and now EV's. With EV's, China had at one point over 200 brands fighting tooth and nail. In the end, only a few will survive, but they will be much stronger with tremendous scale. That's what we're seeing now is the inevitable culling down to a few national champions like BYD.

But do we even have "water cooler" moments anymore since so many people are now working from home?

There is an incorrect assumption that a space program isn't an inherently military endeavor. Space has been militarized from day 1 when Sputnik went online, and both China and the United States see it as an inevitable battlefield and are actively preparing for a conflict there. Government space programs inherently have a military aspect, and nearly every commercial space firm is actively involved in military space applications. The "New Space" firms in all countries are no exception.

And in completely unrelated news, ICE raids Anthropic's headquarters to verify visas of its foreign-looking workforce.

It's the problem where a generally true statement has been overly simplified and turned into a near religious mantra, leading to inevitable disappointment and disillusionment. It is true that on average, a college-educated person will make more money over their lifetime than someone who has no college education. However, there are a lot of caveats. What school did you go to? What did you major in? For a lot of majors, did you go to graduate school? Did you intern while in college? Do you have family or friends who have gone to college? Ending your education with just an undergraduate degree in anthropology from a tier-three college with no meaningful internships sets up a very low probability of finding a good job with a strong starting salary upon graduation. Yet when giving advice, well-meaning but poorly informed advisors just repeat the mantra of going to college even if the person may not be ready, hasn't thought through what they want, or does not have the family history to advise on what to get out of college. Yes, their odds in general are better, but is that particular individuals odds good? I find this particularly frustrating for ill-prepared kids, many who are the first in their family to go to college, who are pushed in with little advice or support, and then inevitably drop out with a mountain of debt.

The irony is that the very thing we celebrated the Internet for in the early days, it's ability to bring together niche interests and organize marginalized voices, is also its greatest weakness and probably its downfall. So assume you're in favor of LGBTQ+ rights. Yes, the Internet was a blessing to the movement, helping the community organize and build a voice. People who may be closeted were now able to explore their identities and ideas with others online even if they lived in communities that may have marginalized or silenced them. They could mobilize and take action on a scale unimaginable decades ago.

Now replace LGBTQ+ rights with something else, like racial supremacists or violent extremists from across the political and religious spectrum. The Internet has been a blessing to them, helping their communities organize and build a voice. People who may have secretly harbored those views were now able to explore these ideas with others online even if their communities frowned upon their beliefs and tried to silence them. They can now mobilize and take action on a scale unimaginable decades ago.

As the article pointed out, the UK and the European Union already changed their regulations for reporting to be on a biannual basis. So the move would actually bring the United States in closer alignment with Europe.

It's no different from the evolution of every media format. You start with some higher quality, high brow content experimenting with the medium then realize that its easier, less risky, and more consistently profitable to sell cheap "drugs" like reality television programming, angry talk radio, neverending sequels, generic pop music, risque social media posts, etc. Podcasting is no different.

I'd put a nuance on it - it's not that advertisers prefer ragebait especially since it can come back and bite your brands in the ass when an angry host inevitably goes off the rails. Advertisers however seek the widest, most consistent audience, and this kind of angry content as you described is unfortunately what draws the most people. Nor do I think advertisers are the primary people to blame. The bigger blame falls on producers who'd rather chase the low cost, high listener content that maximizes profits without a care for social value rather than take a risk on new content. Its not that different from television producers who chase cheap reality TV or Hollywood spawning a thousand sequels rather than gamble on original storytelling. Low risk, high profit for mentally addictive thought "drugs".

Your questions are fair, but AI offers you the benefit of getting rid of crap tasks (e.g. writing minutes, editing transcripts) so you can put more time on tasks that require actual thoughts.

It's not really that different than the surgeon general telling smokers not to smoke, drinkers to drink in moderation, the general population to get more exercise, etc. Guidelines that people will at best nod to, worst ignore.

I'd also add that the distances are not that long between stations, so even when you do have straightaways, you may never have enough distances where you can make max speeds that would create notable differences in time: most of the stops are like 30 to 40 miles apart, with maybe three longer stretches being New Haven to Providence (100 miles) and Baltimore to Wilmington (70 miles) and Philadelphia to EWR (85 miles). That said, Acela is still the best option, particularly going from DC to NYC or NYC to Boston. Driving those corridors is very time consuming and expensive due to traffic and tolls, and if you're going to / from Manhattan, it takes a good hour to get to and from any of the major airports let alone the time in the airport to clear security.

The classic definition of free speech: "You're free to speak as long as I agree with you... :P" /sarcasm

These kind of deals take years to negotiate - this particular one probably started during the Biden administration or Trump's first term (and in Korea, the terms of President Yoon or President Moon who belong in opposing parties). Believe it or not, the deal was probably driven by KAL's business needs, particularly for long haul aircraft (which makes up most of the order), and not some kind of near term political pressure. The only thing political pressure impacted was the timing of the deal announcement - rather than announcing it at Korean airshow like ADEX like they normally would, they announced it at the summit to give both sides a way of showing that they're making deals.

Completely agree. For better or worse, universities do provide a curated pool of candidates that recruiters can draw from. They may not always be the best, but you can get a certain baseline of capability and competence from the right universities. Those without prestigious degrees are a bigger crapshoot: you may find some of your best talent in the wild, but it's much harder to find them and validate especially if they don't have enough work experience to point to.

Also, we should note that when you look at the composition of their executive leadership team, you'll note Karp has a BS from Haverford and a JD from Stanford, Cohen has his BS from Stanford, Sankar his BS from Cornell and MS from Stanford, Glazer from BA Santa Clara and JD Emory, Taylor from BS/MS Stanford and JD Harvard. Thiel is Stanford. So while they may not necessarily care about the paper you have, their leadership team all have a lot of paper with elite pedigrees.