He has relented to pressure from the Linux foundation at least a couple times since then (CoC and AI). The Linux foundation is a way for corporations to partially control Linux with money.

Which makes me admire Theo even more.

You should add North Korea to that list. A simultaneous attack by China and N Korea would pose a dilemma.

A military siege is a strategic way to approach the Iran situation. (NB. I don't claim to know what Trump is doing)

Not really. So far we're seeing more and more positive effects of GLP-1 agonists. NAION is rare, so it's not even clear that GLP-1 drugs are to blame. It might as well be something else, like increased physical activity or rapid weight loss.

CEOs tend to be under contracts with behavior clauses to avoid high-risk behavior that could make them susceptible to blackmail.

Nvidia is dragging him not because of morality, but because of a breach of contract that could potentially put the company (or contracts with the US government) at risk.

CEOs operate under strict behavioral clauses, specifically to avoid high-risk individuals susceptible to blackmail or espionage.

If you've never had a boss like this -- a lazy narcissist -- you're lucky. But if you have, the pattern is familiar and unmistakable:

* Doesn't understand the issues.

* Doesn't do his homework.

* Believes he's a genius whose "gut" overrules people who do understand and do do their homework.

* Plays his subordinates off against one another.

* Highly susceptible to information from random sources: thing he saw on TV, or heard on the golf course.

* Not particularly fussed about contradicting himself because he doesn't care about being right, but does care about being in charge.

* The more chaotic he can make things, the more in charge he feels.

* Has a cynical view of the people he works for but has a genuine gift for flattery when it suits his purposes.

Once you've seen this up close it's really obvious when you come across it again. You can't *not* listen to a lazy narcissist boss because he absolutely will try the stupid shit he says he will. But you can't count on him either, because he has no commitment to anything other than how he looks and feels *right now*.

Neither. Commerce didn't drop it, it got taken away and given to DoJ, but not because Commerce couldn't handle the invetigation of where the chips were going. The case goes to DoJ because we're talking about criminal charges of smuggling, corporate fraud, violation of national security statutes. Also because the Commerce investigation was tained by potential political interference. And possibly because it ran afoul of a counterintelligence operations siloed in the DoJ -- although by this point the cat is so out of the bag everyone must assume they've got a FISA wiretap warrant on them.

However, the *effect* may be to slow the progress of the investigation and delay any actions being taken.

The first reason for this is that criminal investigations are slower, the standards of proof higher, and potentially involve a criminal trial. Commerce could simply make an administrative law determination that put Megaspeed on some shit list and come to some kind of agreement with NVIDIA.

The second reason is that putting this into DoJ's hands is putting it into a department that has had staff turnover and loss of institutional knowledge, strife between career personnel and political appointees, and difficulty replacing lost employees. It's also led by lame-duck appointees, facing turnover in the next administration. So if they don't make progress in the next two years, allowing for transition delays, it could be years before anything gets accomplished. By then a lot of people will have left their jobs, memories will get hazy, evidence will go missing, and defensive positions constructed.

So while the investigation hasn't been *killed*; it has been delayed so long that it's effectively in suspended animation. It's not possible for Commerce to sanction anyone because the investigation is out of their hands.

These things are all well-documented. From our past conversations, I know you are smart, certainly smart enough to use a search engine. So why are you suddenly talking like a Soviet operative?

Did your account get hacked?

It's a worthy question, Linux gets more use than BSD.

But also, companies do avoid using code that is GPL'ed.

How would sandboxing solve the problem mentioned in the article?

If you want your code to be used as widely as possible, then use an MIT/BSD license.

If you want companies to give back if they use your code, then use GPL. If you want to dual license, then use GPL.

Both licenses are good, just use the right tool for the goal.

If the resulting implementation looks too much like the original, then it will probably still count as a copyright violation in court. If you want to do a true clean-room implementation, then you need to keep the code out of the LLM's training data.

Money may be an aphrodisiac but come on, Jensen, look in the mirror. There's limits to anything.

The trick is to make sure that nobody cheats. If one jurisdiction offers more favorable terms than everywhere else, then all the data centers go there and ruin the environment. This is the ideal use of federal or even supranational regulation, to make sure the playing field is level.