Except that App Store is now mandatory for any business app.

Agreed. It should be more like $25. $100 is _way_ too much.

Also don't forget having to use Apple hardware to do the development.

Investors are chasing a company that achieves some kind of AI singularity. Let's set aside the fact that there's no reason to believe there is anything but diminishing marginal returns by making marginal refinements to current frontier models. Let's imagine someone hits the jackpot and gets, not even AGI, but a system that's as far ahead of today's frontier model are ahead of 2020's GPT 2.0 in performance.

Globally AI revenues are 150 billion, against a cumulative burn rate of 450 billion. A model that is a generation ahead of others would almost certainly capture the lion's share of that revenue.

If AGI magically appears as a Sam Altman has promised investors it will, a hundred million is way too low. Add, maybe, another zero to the revenues.

Conservatively, a safer assumption is that frontier models will get marginally better based on refinements in training and reinforcement and the other bits and bobs that go into these systems. The nobody is winning the lion's share of anything, at least overnight. But you have to define "safe". By "safe" I mean unlikely to lose money. But some investors are clearly defining "safe" as "having the greatest chance of owning a piece of the biggest thing ever."

I'm not following this super-closely, but if Anthropic is pursuing adding multi-step model based reasoning to their system, that could be the basis of a generational leap in capability. But if that is an approach that looks like it has a chance of working, then their competitors are no doubt pursuing the same thing. In that case you'd expect the revenue pie to grow as the scope of model utilty increases, but that growth to be split among several competitors. This could credibly result in a revenue stream for some of them that is as big as the entire industry's revenue stream today. But there's going to be hell to pay on the data center impacts end of things.

How? The net result: we are $1.2B poorer. Are you doing accounting for DOGE?

Why do you need all these features (apart from the remote start)? Just use CarPlay/AA.

Well, yes. For many years, presidential candidates, both Democratic and Republican, referred to the United States as "the indispensible nation". And my reaction was always, "Doesn't that mean the US is a single point of failure for civilization?"

We are currently performing an experiment which addresses this question: can the US enjoy the benefits of soft power without the cost? That's the whole point of obeying *norms*. No individual force is going to punish you if you are treacherous, mercurial, foul-mouthed, disrespectful and generally unpredictable. Everyone will punish you.

I think an inevitable cost of this experiment will be that the world will decide that the US can't be a single point of failure for global democracy any longer. In many ways, that's something that will be good for us. But it's also going to cost us in painful ways. When the world decides to move away from the dollar as the international reserve currency, you will see both inflation and higher interest rates on everything from credit cards to mortgages, to business loans that will offset the export advantages. We will need *more* business investment to shift the economy to producing low value goods again, so the transition will be rocky.

It's a trade off: you get abundant free energy to run the server, with extreme constraints on cooling because your server is running in the most perfect Thermos bottle ever.

Others are taking the opposite tack: undersea data centers for abundant free cooling at the expense of having to get the power down to your servers.

If had to bet on which one is more practial, I'd go with undersea servers. Build them off the coast of Chile, run cables out from batery-backed solar plants in the Atacama desert.

Sorry, on mobile now and it's difficult to look up. You can search for the number of arrests and the number of lethal shootings during an arrest by race. Black people have far more interactions with police per capita, but each interaction is less likely to result in death than for other races.

What exactly? The tax return information is available from the IRS. Cross-reference it with Census district zoning.

So offices create value, not people in them? Do a mental experiment: replace offices with remote work. How much value remains?

No. Around 80-85% of people would prefer to live in single-family homes. People instead are forced by economics to live in dense areas that are designed to be hostile for humans (bike lanes instead of roads, forced public transit, no good grocery stores forcing people to eat junk, etc.)

Police are statistically less likely to harm Black people during an arrest.

This is simply false. Most of the US wealth is generated in suburbs. Or perhaps you think that companies are people?

Urban cores steal from suburbia by taxing company offices that are located in urban cores. But if you look at PERSONAL tax returns, suburbia is clearly funding the lifestyle of urban cores. And as usual, welfare queens always think that they're actually the hardest-working and deserve all they get.

Yeah, let's instead force people into 15-minute neighborhoods. With barbed wire and fences, so they won't dare to go out.

Cheaper housing, better jobs, more space for kids, better entrepreneurship, better general outcomes. There's simply nothing that urban cores can offer in these areas.

Yes, classic American suburb. And it IS cheaper.

The houses themselves tend to be more expensive because they tend to be larger. But the _services_ do NOT significantly differ in cost!

The problem is that construction and maintenance in cities is FREAKING EXPEN$$$$IVE. For example, Greater Houston Area is mostly suburban and has similar population as NYC. Yet GHA spends 2.5 _times_ _less_ per capita. If you look at specific services, it's a wash. Police is slightly cheaper in suburbs, sewer is more expensive, water is similar, electricity is cheaper.

Nope. It's cheaper to ban all commercial construction larger than 2 stories and just shoot everyone who proposes densification.

Because of toxic urbanism. Large cities subsidize the large companies by offloading externalities (costs of living) on population.

No. Leftists are morons. And you're right about the location: we need to dis-aggregate cities to make other locations viable.

Another way to look at it: city cores became so toxically dense that they force people to live in misery, because it's their only option. In other words: the country is getting strangled by bike lanes.

Nationwide. There are almost 1.10 houses per family, we literally have empty houses decaying right now because nobody lives there.

Bullshit. Suburbans are the CHEAPEST way to construct housing. And we have so many homeless because we _stopped_ constructing new suburbs.

Can you tell me without looking it up, how many housing units per family do we have right now?