Imagine creating a model and now you have to wait for a 5 year-old to review your model for it to get released. If it doesn't say that that their favourite things are the best things ever then it fails the review.

Essentially all of the major scientific advancements that have led to the US's prominence in science in the last 80 years have been the direct result of government funding of the primary research. Industry and private enterprise are great at taking the results of primary research from the lab to the market, but the vast majority of investors have neither the foresight nor the patience to support the fundamental breakthroughs. Since the second world war the US government has been the largest funder of that, and the US has benefitted enormously for decades as a result. Now China is set to become the largest funder of primary research. You don't need to be a Nobel prize winning scientist to work out what is going to happen as a result.

They have indicated that their mysterious Mythos model is a lot larger, and will likely cost a lot more to run. Opus 4.7 is an incremental improvement on Opus 4.6, at the same price. That seems like a reasonable stop-gap until they have built enough power stations and bought enough GPUs to make Mythos available to more than a handful of users.

While I won't argue with speed limits often being arbitrary, the problem of fines (and civil forfeitures) being used to generate revenue is largely an American one. In most places fine revenue either goes to the central government's general fund or is ring-fenced for specific uses that are not the under the control of the people enforcing the laws. In the USA most states let the police agency that levies a fine or civil forfeiture keep some or all of the money. This leads directly to abuse. Enforcement is always subjective and selective; giving the police a personal financial incentive to be heavy-handed is bound to lead that way. Unfortunately there is a notable contingent in the US that seems to think that "law and order"(TM) is perfectly even-handed and should be vigorous, and also want the funding for government to come from someone other than them, so this sort of arrangement persists even though it's patently obvious that it leads to corruption.

The amount of precipitation wasn't the issue this year, it was the high temperatures in the mountain West. From the OP:

It's the snowpack that feeds the rivers through the dryer months. Winter rain melts what snow is there and it all runs down hill quickly (literally and metaphorically). There's only so much space in the reservoirs and the rest is back in the ocean by April or May. This summer is going to suck for farmers, or anyone else who needs a steady water supply.

Maybe, but that's also what people said about both Google and Facebook. The cost of delivering the service will go down over time. The cost of customer acquisition will go up as incumbent players solidify their positions. A loss leader now is arguably well worth it for the future. Add to that the fact that the vast majority of the investments being made are going into hardware that is increasingly hard to come by and the risk to investors is less than they first appear, while the upside is potentially huge.

There is a lot of hype in the AI space at the moment, and the valuations across the market as a whole are unsustainable, but Anthropic is one of the companies that seem more likely to come out well in the long run.

I grew up in a house that was more than 300 years old. There are plenty of churches in Europe that have crypts which were sealed 1,000 years ago and are still in fine shape. There are large scale human constructions such as the Egyptian and Mayan pyramids and the Great Wall of China that are over 2,000 years old. Construction to last 300 years is not that hard.

Probably more importantly, 300 years is short enough that people might actually remember why they are not supposed to go "in there". I suspect that one of the biggest challenges with burying waste for 10,000 years would people thinking that it looks "interesting" after 1,000 years and digging it back up.

No, sodium is much cheaper than lithium in the form that is needed to make batteries; recent commodity prices for NaOH have been 10x to 20x cheaper than bulk LiOH, although this isn't all the cost. The technology development is now to a state where complete sodium batteries are cheaper the lithium ones and has been for a year or so, and the technology is improving fast.

You are correct that the energy density is indeed worse, but that gap has also been closing in recent years. Modern Na batteries have better energy density than the Li batteries in cars from six or seven years ago. If you're trying to build a lot of cheap electric cars then the lower price is very likely more important than the cars being somewhat heavier and thus a bit slower.

They are not the only people to make a profit from AI!

Surly everyone knows that Belgium is just a little bigger than Lesotho but just a little smaller than Moldova, but for the geographically challenged, that's a somewhat bigger than Hawaii but smaller than Maryland.

It was the size of Luxembourg after the last downsizing. It's now the size of Andorra, but there's another set of cuts coming and it will end up a little smaller than Monaco.

The article you cite says that Canada had 8,982 deportations, 5,821 exclusions, and 3,982 self-departures. For comparison, the USA, which is about 9 times larger, according to ICE had 605,000 deportations, about 1.6 million exclusions and self-departures, and another 525,000 or so deportation orders.

So you're right, the data here is quite relevant. It shows that the USA is deporting people at at least 10 times the per capita rate of Canada.

Well, it's a US news outlet, and US news reporting does tend to be rather parochial; I think it is more myopia than new suppression. The news here is the huge leap up in cases in the USA but I'm sure the RFK will be upset that you're not #1 yet.

It's worth noting that there are some strong similarities between the US and Canadian outbreaks in 2025. Both started in Mennonite communities with very low vaccination rates and spread through close community contact. The Canadian outbreak appears to have started at a wedding in New Brunswick in December 2024, where a large number of unvaccinated people travelled to the wedding and one of them brought an infection to the party too. This large scale close contact got the outbreak kick-started faster than the one in Texas, but then they grew at a similar exponential rate which alleged with the similar low vaccination rates in the communities where they took hold.

Fair enough. Don't get me wrong; I'm a huge fan of EVs. I just worry that focusing solely on trying to replace 2.5 billion existing ICE engines with electric ones will take too long to make the necessary impact. Finding a way to effectively reduce the net carbon emissions of the existing installed base is going to be a critical part of the solution. When you couple that with the fact that there's a large overlap between the technologies needed for synthesis and sequestration, it seems like finding a way to get the market to switch from pulling oil out ground to pulling it out of the air seems like it would be worth the effort.

The existing processes are inefficient for sure (most e-fuel systems have about 45% efficiency minus a a few percent more for the CO2 capture) but the efficiencies have been improving over the last 10 to 15 years with a bunch of new catalysts and if this was a market priority then I expect that we would see even more.

I suspect that what happened is that people found hydrogen difficult to store, move and handle and it didn't fit will with the huge installed base of infrastructure, so the market rejected it.

There's not enough movement on nuclear, but we are already reaching the point where we have gluts of electricity in the wrong place (just search for news stories about the spot price of electricity going negative). Wind and solar are abundant but unreliable and unevenly distributed. Deploying technology that can store the energy (even if inefficient) and then enable it to be moved to where it is needed (very efficiently) has value even if building new nuclear capacity is slow.