> All of this capability emerging from a company (Anthropic) that’s just five years old. Imagine what Claude will be capable of in 2030.
I don't believe VC-backed companies see monotonic user-facing improvement as a general rule. The nature of VC means you have to do a lot of unmaintainable cool things for cheap, and then slowly heat the water to boil. See google, reddit, facebook, etc...
For all we know, Claude today is the best it will ever be.
I understand this argument in engineering and medical fields, but in clothing industry, does incentivising risk and innovation really matter that much?
The US gave $7500 per car sold in the US to any manufacturer, with the "Buy American" restriction added only in the last two years of the policy.
I'm also curious to hear your source for the subsidies - from what I can see China has spent anywhere from 3x to 5x propping up the domestic EV industry as the US has over the last 15 years. The US had Tesla which almost went bankrupt multiple times despite the subsidies; China has a dozen EV manufacturers, half of whom are on life support now that the government is withdrawing subsidies.
The Chinese spent more money on an absolute basis, yes. They gave less per car, but built > 10x as many cars, so your number of 3-5x sounds about right.
The best source IMO is the commission that came up with the European countervailing duty of 17%.
I think that it is reasonable for the magnitude of Chinese subsidies to be cheaper per-car. Even ignoring any arguments about purchasing power and government aid, I would expect China to spend less per-car simply because the foundational technical problems in building a good consumer EV had already been addressed by the time they got started.
I'm not trying to attack the impressiveness of the Chinese EV industry, because it's going to be an important part of the future. But saying that Chinese EVs are banned in the US purely because they are too good is incomplete. A big part of why they are banned, and why the US and China have such a frosty relationship, is because Chinese trade tactics are not fair to non-state-backed competitors.
Chinese EV development started in 2001. They started from a clean sheet.
Your point about fairness is interesting because that's a position the US has given up on, especially since 2025. The European EV tariffs of 17/34 percent are fair-ish. The 100% American tariffs never were
I feel like the normal reaction is to see it in both and maintain a distinction between these two entirely different contexts without ignoring the crimes of the lesser.
It's some utopian dream to think the death of the EU would decentralize power. It's currently a necessary evil to put pressure on the already centralized power of the US global hegemony. Without the EU, the world is controlled by the US and China.
> It's currently a necessary evil to put pressure on the already centralized power of the US global hegemony.
How can I opt out of this "necessary evil"?
I don't want to be part of this feud between powers as I don't want the EU to be a world power since in all world powers 90% of the wealth just concentrates to the top 1% anyway, so becoming one would not benefit me. Will housing be more affordable once we become a "world power"? Or fix healthcare shortages?
Like for example, the public transport and healthcare where I live have been going to shit past 10 years plus housing become unaffordable. Those issues are not China's fault, Trump's fault and not Putin's fault no matter how much they try to gaslight us otherwise. Putin and Trump didn't come here and inflate our currency creating speculative bubbles that popped, our own politicians did.
So no, it's not a "necessary evil", it's a manufactured one via FUD and scaremongering, to deflect blame and responsibility for failures of local politicians and copot public option in the direction the 1% financieres desire since their kids won't be on the frontline of this new world war they're trying to stir up, we'll all be just casualties and I don't want to be one.
Small countries lack agency and international law is being repurposed as toilet paper right now.
Look at Ukraine, look at Greenland.
Your view is demonstrably proven wrong.
As for cost of living, name a developed country, big or small, where things are going swimmingly on that front and I’ll name you ten others where it didn’t, big and small.
>Small countries lack agency and international law is being repurposed as toilet paper right now.
It's not just "right now", it's how it has always been. International law was never a thing to begin with. It was just a sham created by the world powers after WW2 nuremberg trials, so they could add a veneer of legitimacy when they enforce their will over weaker countries in disputes, never the other way around. It was still just "history is written by the victor" business as usual. Otherwise they would have prosecuted leadership of France, Belgium and UK for their crimes in their colonies if there was any actual objective justice in international law.
As a smaller country you never had a say in your sovereignty if you didn't have nukes or the blessing of powerful allies to enforce laws for you via their more powerful militaries. "Might is right" is the undefeated fact that has been true for 10k years of human history, and will still be true 10k years in our future.
>Your view is demonstrably proven wrong.
Then demonstrate and prove it wrong.
>As for cost of living, name a developed country, big or small, where things are going swimmingly on that front and I’ll name you ten others where it didn’t, big and small.
So you agree with me that CoL is fucked, just like I originally said. Just because it's fucked in other countries, doesn't invalidate my statement.
It works if you know the person and have a baseline for how much confidence you give their opinions. If it's just a random person on the internet, they need to support their argument.
I mean—they can. They don’t need to give more than they’re already giving we anonymous strangers for free. For all we know, this person wrote this for people they encounter personally or professionally, and we’re just incidentally benefitting.
We as readers should gauge their credibility for ourselves, whether by reputation or by checking the claims. I don’t know who wrote it but it seems basically correct, consistent, and concisely argued to me.
I don't believe VC-backed companies see monotonic user-facing improvement as a general rule. The nature of VC means you have to do a lot of unmaintainable cool things for cheap, and then slowly heat the water to boil. See google, reddit, facebook, etc...
For all we know, Claude today is the best it will ever be.
reply