I think a more accurate description would be "Canada agrees to pay to access EU Network of Supercomputers".

Looks like a truck/pickup body on a regular car platform. What they call a "Ute" Down Under.

Below are the two videos that I mentioned.

Patrick Boyle

https://youtu.be/T-oXyXwD6sE?s...

Casual Finance

https://youtu.be/roe3SgezmmU?s...

eMudhra is exiting the global SSL/TLS certificate business and is offering customers Sectigo-issued replacements [ ... ]

...Sectigo? Née Comodo? They haven't always been the sharpest tools in the shed, either.

This IPO is a rug pool by venture capital investment that has already dropped their money into the company for control and now the public will cash them out with the IPO offer.

The debt bagage of this company is just a huge and the possibility of them ever becoming profitable is near impossible since the market is saturated with their competitors, their models are not winning well if anybody else, especially when the competitors like Google and Facebook/Meta and others that are willing to spend even more money who have revenue sources outside of just pure AI token spending.

Even SpaceX can get their money from their internet service order rocket ships or possibly Tesla if they were rich but anthropic is a standalone.

Perhaps this is another Bitcoin or other dot-com company going bust in the near future.

I believe the future will include AI but it will be small models that are self-contained and that people have on their own equipment and not not spending vast amounts of money on paying for tokens to third-party companies.

Patrick Boyle on YouTube does a great job explaining the vastness of the debt along with the Casual Finance channel.

The only thing I ever got out of doing homework at Uni was a case of beer. The reward for our team coming first in an assignment to devise a strategy for maximizing throughput through a telecoms switch. A far as grades went, midterms and finals set them, 50/50.

But my high school was the same, come to think of it (though it was a Montessori school, a bit different from others). Teachers assigned homework, some even checked that you completed the work, but the only homework that was actually graded were essays. Teachers usually covered the homework quickly at the start of the class, pausing to clarify things if a student had questions. Seems like a good way to find out what students are struggling with, and provide some reinforced learning.

In other words: homework can be a tool to help struggling students to catch up with the class, not to punish them for falling behind. Grading homework is worse than pointless. And in this age of AI, grading homework only further encourages the use of AI.

That was just one single test program of only 20 KB. Extrapolate that out and it's significant.

That's more than 50% larger for that one test program. I don't consider a 50% increase "slight". Maybe a 10% increase can be considered slight, but that much difference is significant. Especially talking about embedded systems and the like.

Reminds me a little of the short story "Manna" about AI taking over all production, and 2 outcomes for society. As a staunch capitalist, I think that in an AI-driven world, or a "post labour" world or whatever you want to call it, capitalism as a means of distribution of wealth is not going to work. Yes, I think many would argue that it is already failing in that regard, but I would counter that the safeguards we have against people falling through the cracks still mostly work... and more importantly, that we have no better system to replace it. But if work itself pretty much becomes redundant, capitalism will only continue to work if we can find a good answer to the old question: who owns the means of production? And those means ought to include natural resources and land as well.

I am sure there are some good answers, and a way to organize society around that new reality. But I'm not at all convinced either that this is where we are headed. By the time governments would have to take action, they'd be wholly owned by the new aristocracy.

If you ask a bare LLM to do stuff you'll get a mess. I run Claude code with a multipart harness that compels the model to treat the code as the mathematical thing it is, not human prose. LSP Enforcement Kit keeps low capability tools like grep out of the mix, Abstract Syntax Tree things handle the code as its meant to be understood, so that's CodeSight, OptiVault, Serena. About a year ago I gave Antigravity the boot after their awful 2.0 release and went back to JetBrains IDEs, which now offer code structure wise MCP services. Code review with the Ponytail skill chases away LLM excesses, and there's a smattering of other stuff like that in the mix. And then you hunt for whatever additional guardrails you can get the LLM to apply systemically.

I've evolved my own higher level project methods and they're comparable in a lot of ways to what Matt Pocock offers, but his stuff is more structured, more carefully considered, and I have to work with others now, after a long time solo. I'm taking his stuff, implementing a Kanban/wiki system, Gitlab CE, and NanoClaw for anyone who wants agents. I expect quite the slog between now and New Years, but in 2027 we're gonna stop trudging and start gliding over the landscape.

The proposed EU age verification app is a good deal less intrusive than any of the nasty mechanisms that some social media is already employing. Most of those are a privacy nightmare. The EU app, in contrast:
- Site / App operator does not get your identity, only a proof of age.
- Government does not get to see which sites you visit.
- Actual verification takes place once, and whatever ID you use does not need to be stored (and can't be subsequently stolen)
- App is open source, so the workings can be verified.

Has it though? In the West, certainly. It's what the MBAs all parrot: focus on your core strengths, divest everything else. Or at least split it off under different names. But there are still Japanese, Taiwanese and Korean conglomerates that make everything from oil tankers, appliances, musical instruments to motorcycles. All under the same name. Somehow they are not too concerned about brand name dilution or core strengths. Like the MCP guy says in Robocop: "Good business is where you find it".

The stock argument is a good point... I'd love to invest in SpaceX the aerospace company, not so much in SpaceX the AI company with a satcom division and its own rocket department. Certainly not if they add an automotive department that seems to have lost its way. Though I don't know if this is about Musk's wants, it smells a lot more like the acquisition of X and xAI by Spacex: a trick to artificially pad the company's valuation, or something like that.

And our children will live, Mr. Beale, to see that... perfect world, in which there's no war or famine, oppression or brutality. One vast and ecumenical holding company, for whom all men will work to serve a common profit, in which all men will hold a share of stock. All necessities provided, all anxieties tranquilized, all boredom amused. [emphasis mine]

-- Arthur Jensen, Network (destroying his golden goose)

Further viewing.

Capitalism just means that the means of production are privately owned, by investors with a profit motive. That's all. You mention the post WW2 era as an example when life was still good for even the lower incomes, and that was also a capitalist era. Capitalism has brought a standard of living unheard of in most of human history, not to the rich but to the working class.

It took more than capitalism to make that happen, capitalism does not provide equal opportunity to everyone nor does it necessarily distribute wealth fairly. And it seems that capitalism tends to concentrate money and with it power into ever-smaller groups. It takes unions, governments, laws and watchdogs to ensure that businesses keep their proper place, play fair and do right by everyone. And they used to do that fairly well for over a century. It's those entities failing us now, not capitalism. GP is right about that.

Yes and No.
MBAs are taught to look at the wrong things. But that "wrong thing" is not the profit motive. Profit is the purpose of a business, in its essence. A founder or enlightened CEO might give it purpose beyond that, but at its core, profit is the goal.

The real question is: what agencies and regulations exist to ensure that this profit motive - useful as it is - serves society's higher goals?