gruez

26 ms·

661.
by gruez 4mo ago
>That chart doesn't make the case you think it does. Real median household income rising [...] Where are you getting household income from? It clearly says "Personal Income"
662.
by gruez 4mo ago
>The Data-Center Boom Is Sparking a Third Wave of Inflation - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48677039 - June 2026 The article says >Goldman Sachs economists forecast that data centers will account for nearly hal
663.
by gruez 4mo ago
The point is that his original claim is either incorrect, or is not supported by the source he cited.
664.
by gruez 4mo ago
>In which case fair, though I would ask what does mean abject poverty for you? The exact number is heavily contested[1], so I know better than to provide my own. That said, the official poverty lines are a pretty good place to start, and
665.
by gruez 4mo ago
>The linked view of the chart is distributed by income percentile, the title is "Wealth by income percentile" That's still measuring wealth, not income. The correct statement to draw from the chart is that top 1% by income
666.
by gruez 4mo ago
>I do think quality of life is trending downward given the fact that housing, food, gas, medical care costs are all increasing while wages are stagnant or worse. ??? https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEPAINUSA672N
667.
by gruez 4mo ago
"should" is a pretty woolly concept. "should" we have to work at all? UBI proponents don't think so, and that apparently that has 45% support. What's hopefully obvious is that not being able to afford a 2 bedro
668.
by gruez 4mo ago
That's a laudable goal, but hardly "abject poverty"
669.
by gruez 4mo ago
Probably to referring to hours worked, eg. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/AWHAETP
670.
by gruez 4mo ago
>the top 1% have nearly as much income as the bottom 80% >link for "Distribution of Household Wealth in the U.S. since 1989" income =/= wealth
671.
by gruez 4mo ago
>and half of the US is living in abject poverty Source? All the ones I know of use questionable methodology like: "being able to afford a 2 bedroom apartment at median wage".
672.
by gruez 4mo ago
Or tell claude to do it /s
673.
by gruez 4mo ago
>if they consider them valuable intellectual property [...] It's hard to take any of what's written seriously, given that it's all AI generated. Did the user actually lose "valuable intellectual property", or did
674.
by gruez 4mo ago
>1) net margins have been high for e.g. 3 years That breaks down for industries with long investment cycles. It takes years to build a fab, so the fact that DRAM prices have been high for 1-2 years isn't too suspicious, considering
675.
by gruez 4mo ago
>Holy overreaction, Batman. I don't see it as that much different than people setting up IP blocks at the country/ASN level.
676.
by gruez 4mo ago
>They are also constantly using the word "illicit" and theft in their communications, and in their lobbying, when there nothing illicit about using model output to train another model. They are trying to create an aura of crimi
677.
by gruez 4mo ago
>Anthropic cannot tell you what you can and cannot do with the LLM's output, they do not own that, its public domain. And are they actually doing this? For instance, if you read their press releases about distillation attacks[1], th
678.
by gruez 4mo ago
>This is UTC+8 so to get cheaper DeepSeek: Note "cheaper" is only relative to the 2x peak price. The off-peak price is still the same price as today. In other words they hiked the price 2x for peak hours only.
679.
by gruez 4mo ago
>The license goes beyond redistribution. You are granting a sublicensable and transferable right to your content, giving the platform the legal authority to sell or license it (or to not license it) to AI scrapers and other entities. The
680.
by gruez 4mo ago
>Shouldn't you look at the YoY change instead, to compare to stock returns ? This might work for the G7 case[1], but not the US vs DRC case, where it's an obvious case of sloping up vs sloping down. Granted, the case is contriv
681.
by gruez 4mo ago
I don't see how that's relevant. They have a license to redistribute my comments, but that's the extent of their legal rights with respect to my work. They're not my agent or my publisher. Moreover I don't have any
682.
by gruez 4mo ago
>* Large caps prefer to repurchase stocks, stock repurchases contribute fully towards a given company share price increase. That doesn't work because indices are typically market cap weighted. A stock buyback might increase nominal
683.
by gruez 4mo ago
>> Historically stocks that had a good run then tended to underperform >because you're defining "underperform/overperform" with respect to an average that contains them. Why is this true? For instance, if you&#x
684.
by gruez 4mo ago
>keep supply as low as they want and allow the AI companies to spend hand over fist That's indistinguishable from not wanting to get burned by another semiconductor boom/bust cycle.
685.
by gruez 4mo ago
>(which is also why its silly for Anthropic to be in such a tizzy about China using Claude's output, Claude's output is public domain). I don't see how it's any more weird than reddit/stackoverflow/linkedin
686.
by gruez 4mo ago
The point is that just because there's a handful of people (relatively speaking) looking to buy more RAM to upgrade their last gen systems, doesn't mean there's robust demand for DRAM manufacturers to keep DDR4 manufacturing
687.
by gruez 4mo ago
>Dropping DDR-4 is anything but meaningful. It'll easily last 10 more years, machines from this gen are still much more affordable and quite powerful. In fact for most dev and gaming workflows the difference between the DDR-4 and DD
688.
by gruez 4mo ago
>Price fixing is legal as long as your are doing it in the open. In the UK it is called "price match" and eg. if supermarket says they keep prices matched to their competitor. No regulator raises an eyebrow. No, the key term is
689.
by gruez 4mo ago
>But god forbid if someone else captures the margins and squeeze them out of easy profits. Yeah that's how law works. Everyone likes money, but that doesn't mean it's fine to steal money. Yes, even from maligned entities l
690.
by gruez 4mo ago
>in a questionably-legal fashion Maybe in the eyes of seething artists/programmers seeing their jobs getting automated, but courts have so far ruled that AI training falls under fair use. Moreover it's not hard to think of vagu

More ›