It's not the same thing, maybe it has something to do with the nature of the hot air convection inside. Things like fries come out way better in the air fryer than in a convection oven. Also, I find them very easy to clean. Just a quick go with the brush and some washing up liquid, done. The racks go into the dishwasher.

How is this company worth a trillion $? I don't see many assets, significant IP, a strong competitive edge, or a model for monetization other than becoming an "AI AWS" The latter has some merit, if 1) a strong market for AI Cloud services emerges (and that means corporate clients, not generic chatbots), and 2) they manage to secure a corner on scarce supplies like memory and AI-capable chips.

You're kidding, right? The way things work in China is highly conducive to innovation, from small startups and even individuals to factories. From electronics to vehicles and even space flight. They are not afraid to blatantly copy ideas, which gives them a leg up...they don't stop there, the copy is just the starting point of their development. Meanwhile, the government doesn't micro-manage innovation, they provide focus... and that comes with resources. Some advantages they have:
- Companies, even large ones, seem to do very well at scaling up as well as scaling down production runs.
- Extremely short iterations. Want to try something new, with new materials, new shapes? Takes weeks or months in the West, but the Chinese will overnight it. Something that Apple commented on: they did not shift a lot of R&D to China because of cost, but because of speed.
- Lots of cross-pollination between innovators, especially the smaller ones. So-called innovation hubs work in China.

They do go from prototype to production a little fast sometimes, cutting crucial corners. But the speed is impressive. Remember that ridiculous idea of putting a bus on stilts so it could drive over traffic jams? They actually built one. Didn't take more than a few weeks either. I don't think they can get their Starship clone in orbit and back down in one piece before SpaceX will... but if they do, it would not surprise me greatly either.

No. Not here in the Netherlands at least. There's a few new data centers here (not AI related), but all this growth - and the shortcomings of the grid - were predicted 10-15 years ago. The grid operators warned that billions were needed to modernize and beef up the grid in order to meet the predicted demand. Governments didn't want to spend the money. Same for much of our other infrastructure, there's about €50B worth of work that should have been done already, concerning rail, roads, bridges, waterways.

Actually, my Roomba did a good job keeping my old place tidy, with a wall to wall carpet in the living room, and a rather fluffy cat. I'd use a proper vacuum once every couple of weeks to properly deep-clean the carpet and get the dust in the corners. But the Roomba did the rounds daily and took care of the hair and most of the dust. These robot vacuums also do a better job cleaning under sofas, cupboards and beds.

The problem with iRobot specifically is that they stopped innovating and improving their products. Other companies improved their vacuums, better cleaning, added LIDAR, while Roombas were still trundling randomly around the room on crappy NiMH battery packs.

PBS is primarily (85%) privately funded. It will continue to produce shows like Masterpiece, Nova, Frontline, and Sesame Street and people in places like Boston or Philadelphia will continue to benefit from them.

What public funding does is give viewers in poorer, more rural areas access to the same information that wealthy cities enjoy. It pays for access for people who don't have it.

By opting out, Arkansas public broadcasting saves 2.5 million dollars in dues, sure. But it loses access to about $300 million dollars in privately funded programming annually.

Seriously, the idea that we know all the practically important physics there is is the kind of thing only somebody who's never done science or engineering would believe.

Industrial R&D is important, but it is in a distrant third place with respect to importance to US scientific leadership after (1) Universities operating with federal grants and (2) Federal research institutions.

It's hard to convince politicians with a zero sum mentality that the kind of public research that benefits humanity also benefits US competitiveness. The mindset shows in launching a new citizenship program for anyone who pays a million bucks while at the same time discouraging foreign graduate students from attending universtiy in the US or even continuing their university careers here. On average each talented graduate student admitted to the US to attend and elite university does way more than someone who could just buy their way in.

China wanted to lead on science, and made the effort. Now that's paying off, and relatively fast as well it seems. China sent out promising students to foreign universities, to return with valuable learning. They court scientists to move to China, and fund a lot of research. And they have a decent school system with highly motivated students. They have plans and policies in place that work.

What does the West have? Science is beginning to have a bad name here. They tell you you're a sucker if you take a STEM major in college, except perhaps if you study to be a doctor or a dentist, or "something something AI". You're even dumber if you actually pursue a career in academia. Meanwhile we have New Math (a US thing, I know, but here in Europe schooling in mathematics is just as dire), or whatever new nonsense they cooked up. In my country, they are again lowering the nr. of hours per week spent on STEM subjects in high school. More focus on humanities and civics... as they say: "teaching children to be good citizens". Dumb AF, but... good citizens, sure. Taught to challenge everything, and not given the tools or knowledge to do so effectively. One in three kids aged 15 here is functionally analphabetic. Because even reading comprehension and accurate spelling are now optional. Chinese kids work and study hard, ours are taught that being on time is a "white construct", and that STEM education needs to be "decolonized".

No, we're not going to catch up with China. Unless we change our focus.

Plus on many chains, the transaction fee is significant.

That's what the second bill is for, apparently. Isn't this already covered in US laws though? Here in the Netherlands we have had "portrait rights" for over a century, basically it means that you have a say in how your likeness is being used in publications, and you can forbid publication if you have a good reason. Reasons include protecting one's reputation, but also the use of a famous person's likeness without their permission. The law also protects persons after their death, but only for a period of 10 years. Because of AI, they are now considering extending that period.

Why would you want to require humans be used in the creation of media? Should we ban robots in factories as well?

Republicans equate being pro-market with being pro-big-business-agenda. The assumption is that anything that is good for big business is good for the market and therefore good for consumers.

So in the Republican framing, anti-trust, since is interferes with what big business wants to do, is *necessarily* anti-market and bad for consumers, which if you accept their axioms would have to be true, even though what big business wants to do is use its economic scale and political clout to consolidate, evade competition, and lock in consumers.

That isn't economics. It's religion. And when religious dogmas are challenge, you call the people challenging them the devil -- or in current political lingo, "terrorists". A "terrorist" in that sense doesn't have to commit any actual act of terrorism. He just has to be a heathen.

no problem.

I'm actually responding to the AC above you. He is arguing that the attack wouldn't make any sense for either country to make, based on *national* interest. I'm pointing out that's not the only framework in which *regimes* make decisions.