The article starts off explaining the lack of reliable data sets. And most of the stuff in the article was either anecdotal (like some company that took 3 groups of people around Europe looking for places to move, and now projects to have 57 groups) or % stats (which are quite meaningless without the baseline).
Not exactly fake news, but not solid info either...
We will know a lot better in 2030 when we do the census.
That isn't right. It notes the U.S. government doesn't collect comprehensive statistics, then it does a decent job citing many alternative data sources that all point the same way: A Brookings Institution estimate, trends over time from National stats of Portugal, Ireland, France, and some scattered datapoints from Spain, Netherlands, UK, Czech Republic, renunciation of citizenship numbers.
Even if it was purely % stats, you don't need a baseline figure for the claim in the headline (Americans are leaving the US in record numbers) just that the number is going up. There's plenty of solid info that this is a real phenomenon. What's uncertain is the magnitude and significance of it.
Same way it does with nukes. It's Mutually Assured Destruction. If there's a credible promise that attack will result in a total boardwipe, there's strong incentive not to attack, because then China's fucked too. It's crude but it mostly works.
What's interesting is that I don't hear much about China spinning up chip fabs. I haven't gone looking, and I imagine they're doing it, the way we are with the CHIPS act etc. If china could get within a few notches of SOTA (in both nm and throughput), their attack position would be much stronger, but it'd still be a generationally brutal experience for most of humanity.
Presumably he meant to respond to the comment by "Fricken" that suggested there wasn't a problem because the companies would just keep selling chips under new Chinese ownership.
The foundries aren't known to be wired to blow, but the US says they'll bomb them should they come under Chinese control:
>“The United States and its allies are never going to let those factories fall into Chinese hands,” Amb. Robert O’Brien told me during a conversation airing today at the Global Security Forum organized by the Soufan Center in Doha, Qatar.
The bulk of the world’s most advanced microchips are produced in Taiwanese facilities owned by TSMC. Gaining control of those plants would make China “like the new OPEC of silicon chips” and allow them to “control the world economy,” O’Brien said.
“Now let’s face it, that’s never going to happen,” he said.
O’Brien drew a comparison to when Britain chose to destroy France’s storied naval fleet after the country surrendered to Nazi Germany, killing over 1,000 sailors in the process . He recounted how Winston Churchill, a noted Francophile, walked into the House of Commons “with tears streaming down his face because it was the hardest decision he made in the war,” but received unanimous applause.
You're still better off with a jury trial over letting one judge make a decision. Your chances of finding impartiality among 6 or 12 jurors is much greater than taking chances with one judge. Unless you're a company or politician who has a financial or political leverage over a judge, then you want to avoid a jury. Sometimes a counter party can have all kinds of quid pro quo, indirect, leverage over a Judge or even a District Attorney. It's a lot more difficult when you have 12 people to deal with.
The vetting and training process for judges is a lot longer and deeper than the vetting process for juries (though voting for judges kind of throws this out the window). Presumably part of the purpose of this is to establish whether the prospective judge can judge impartially despite their private feelings.
Most of the world does without juries. In the US we don't use juries for all trials. The Supreme Court and circuit courts do without juries. If we don't use juries for our most important legal decisions, why are they better in the cases in which they are used?
I'm not a legal scholar. I'm sure untold volumes have been written about this. Just on its surface, though, it looks like nothing more than an accidental quirk we inherited from the English legal system.
I predict (Kalshi ?) that Anthropic will ultimately be ejected from the Pentagon running. Morals and ethics be damned, all the others will likely tell their workers: any that don't agree, they will be escorted out the door if they don't like it. Corporate America. Just wait for the next genocidal operation where A I is found contributing to the mass murdering. Cuba ?
There is a another more interesting outcome where AI tells the Pentagon everything the Pentagon does is mostly pointless and can be shutdown. This is when the fun starts.
and if so, do you really believe any importers who paid the tariff will further refund back to the consumer ? It's eventually a net win for the importer.
reply