> after we have AIs that are better at evrything than humans.
That this is worded so definitively is a testament to the success of the AI industry. The idea that LLMs will be "better at evrything than humans"[sic] is far from certain.
I suspect that if someone does invent a machine like this, it won't look like a 2026 LLM, and it will be far far in the future. everybody relax.
I'm glad someone agrees! in all seriousness, there's really nothing you can do about it, so why worry? If the AI monster is gonna get us, then you might as well enjoy your life until that point.
Of course not! just find viable alternatives to Microsoft, Apple, Mozilla, YCombinator, Google, Intel, AMD, ...
In all seriousness, as an American I'd love to see a healthier, more well-distributed tech industry, but I don't see many companies stepping up to provide competing services. It's my understanding that china has alternatives to many of these products/services, but I really don't see how anyone in Europe could possibly use a US-free internet.
> but I don't see many companies stepping up to provide competing services
Maybe because the US dropped most of its anti trust regulations, leading to ridiculously monopolistic practices such as "acquire everything that may be threatening".
When was the last time you heard about a European cellphone manufacturer, or social media network, or web browser being acquired by an American monopoly?
I can only think of Nokia, purchased by microsoft in 2014. Those phones ran windows CE before that even, so you could hardly have avoided the american tech industry.
All I'm trying to say is, it's impossible for Europeans to both A) be on the internet and B) avoid the US tech industry.
In the EU there is the threat of jail time if a user of your service does something bad and you haven't completed the necessary bureaucracy to be immune to it. This is the opposite of the US. See for example pissmail.
if that's true, it seems really wasteful honestly. why not reimplement the functionality using a native instruction set rather then emulating some other processor?
That seems extremely efficient to me. That'd be a bad way to build a brand new calculator, perhaps, but the quickest way to get an existing, what, 40 year old?, firmware up and running with the least number of gotchas.
I doubt there are competent and cost-effective engineering teams in existence who could exactly match HP's numeric libraries in a $150 calculator that's guaranteed to sell a tiny number of units.
I just signed up given the low price, got it setup with K-9 POP on my phone. Gotta say that is a very simple and easy to follow setup. Compared with something like Zoho where I get lost everytime I need to navigate around.
I'm really liking this, thanks for the recommendation.
Fairemail is great. Better than Thunderbird and any other mail client around. Every so often I see a new mail client pop up for Android advertising that it does X better than any other client; I look at it and it's either built on top of either aosp or some other oss email client (or a rewrite of same) with X feature bolted on, often with numerous features missing. If you want a full email client, go with fairemail.
Reminder to take a look at what nontrivial OSS software you use every day that you've never paid for, and consider a donation (I recommend GitHub sponsorship as a method that currently charges no fees to either the donor or the recipient)
But surely the managers of those pension funds can see this happening, and will not likely take on the risk of shares that are that young, no? The index funds hands are tied, i agree, but passive retirement funds are largely managed by people who are motivated for them to succeed. If this were not the case, then pension funds could have been looted long ago...
Pension funds that are actively tweaking the mix of stocks they hold likely might decide to play it safe.
On the other hand, do you want to be the one who says, "As a rule we follow the index, but this time we decided to break our own rule, and as a result we lost X% of returns"?
Better wrong with everybody else than wrong on my own.
The reason pension funds include index funds in their mix of investments is because those funds have two features that are exactly what pension funds are aiming for: (1) broad diversification, and (2) conservative inclusion rules that avoid undue exposure to highly volatile firms.
Changing one of those features undermines the reasons for including the index. Doing it specifically for the purpose of including a firm where large pension funds have also been extraordinarily critical of the governance structure as a particular source of risk [0] even moreso.
I was looking at it from a more institutionalized perspective I guess. At least in my field, I know how this works because I see it play out. People are conservative and sometimes would rather be wrong with the herd as long as it means they're not risking being wrong on their own.
Having said that I guess you have a valid point. Once major institutional investors decide an index has basically gone corrupted, then they won't actually buy the index fund anymore. They will just buy all the stocks in the index, and underweight the parts they think are tainted. That's what I would do, anyways.
reply