The Global Foundries split was probably a way to get AMD out of the hyper-capital-intensive fab business. And without a tier-1 customer, Global had less reason to pursue smaller nodes.

Intel has that national-champion thing to keep it afloat. I can imagine there are defence contracts that will never go to a “TSMC Arizona Division” and they’ll pay whatever it takes to keep that going.

Once an egg sac hatched at our communal postbox and it was magical, all these tiny yellow spot sprite things bumbling around and setting off. Put a good narrator on and people would have watched for hours.

I think it’s more the £50 notes. Much like using a USD100 note in the States, it’s a bit big for most daily purchases.

I ended up dumping most of mine on a couple expensive souvenirs in shops expensive enough that they’d deal with it or breaking them in banks.

Some people like to use a stored balance as a financial discipline tool. Don’t put a “real” funding source on the account and then you can only spend the $100 you committed to, and not go whale-mad and drop $500 on premium currencies.

It’s easier just to price in the fee than having to shut down or retool a project.

The problem with attribution is the difficulty of 1000% accurate compliance.

If you grab 100 lines of code from a repository, or five paragraphs from a story, there’s probably a claim there. If you grab a single word, there’s probably not. But in the middle, there’s a paralysis of uncertainty-- is n lines similar enough to create liability? Can you remember where you saw what reliably? You end up with a bias towards “over-attribution” and it becomes difficult to pare it back. Does everything need a full Git-style commit history? Are we forever stuck keeping a credit on a project because it’s difficult to prove you’ve fully scrubbed their contributions?

Focus on how we pay artists (ideally lush grants) and forget about credit. Maybe establish a culture where it’s voluntary and acceptable-- that people feel that they’re allowed to cite their raw materials, and reuse doesn’t make the work lesser-- but don’t try to use the courts to force people to try to remember and track where they saw something when they just want to create, or it creates a hostile environment.

Hey, the broken clock’s right!

IP law always had a built-in scale pronlem. Without a registration-required copyright model, and probably some sort of mandatory licensing rate system, the sheer logistics of finding and arranging rights made a lot of business models inpractical. (For example, why aren’t modern bookstores just print-on-demand kiosks, or streaming services have All The Content? In large part because it would cost thousands to track down owners and negotiate terms for $1.87 in royalties multiplied by every item in the catalog.)

This was ignorable for a long time, or even a commercial advantage for firms with access to large, pre-negotiated catalogs. The AI boom created a surprise market of non-incumbents who need to get access to a lot of IP in a streamlined manner.

If we open the door for bulk IP clearance to grant the AI bubble a stro ger legal footing, it can also allow other, potentially more interesting business ideas to slip through.

The sacred rituals of Western civilization-- the election and the press-- were long ago subsumed by capital. You don’t need to formally censor when the oligarchs own the media and will skew the messaging to serve their interest. You don’t need to have a single party state when the Overton window has been dragged so far right that no electoral outcome can actually oust billionaire rule.

At least, in that context, we can ask who censorship serves? Is it about social cohesion and stability, or preserving the privilege of a handful of people?

The risk they don’t seem to imagine is that their ownership and precious property rights are still conditional.

If you impoverish everyone so much that they no longer have a stake in preserving absolute property rights, it becomes a lot easier to sell “nationalise their assets” and “hang them from a petrol station canopy.”

You might be able to find a few bodyguards you can bribe to protect a compound, but you’re not going to be able to guard everything once society no longer sees value in recognizing your claims to ownership.

Even the “robber barons” of the past-- the Carnegies and Rockefellers-- at least knew that public gestures and restraint would help push that day back, but does Musk or Bezos have that level of understanfing?

Who are the skeletons fighting? Do we need to do well intentioned symbolic support gestures on social media?