I’ve been asking myself this question quite a bit lately. People seem to suddenly think China is a good alternative to the US hegemony status. I sincerely hope I’m just misreading things.
Probably due to the US government doing a constant stream of insane things that hurt Americans and their allies and China not doing that.
Let's not waste time pretending the US is doing something on the same level as what China is doing to the Uighyr.
Imagine for a minute that Trump were a lot smarter, and also ran the supreme court and congress, and you'll basically have Xi.
I’ve been asking myself this question quite a bit lately. People seem to suddenly think China is a good alternative to the US hegemony status. I sincerely hope I’m just misreading things.
As an Aussie, I see it as a good thing that the US has competition. Wouldn't want China to become dominant either, though.
I think this is actually a very level-headed response. It would probably be good for this to scare the US into cleaning its act up a bit.
This is not how economists think. They see the US, go "Coal mining, check. Iron mining, check, so you can make steel inside US. More than enough people, check. Oil, check. As well as 1000 other things, and mostly, the checks are there", and conclude the US could produce cheap cars. So if it makes sense or it becomes urgent enough, it will happen. Nothing is really preventing the US from doing everything itself, and d…
Didn't USA get rich by being the manufactoring powerhose in the 60/70s? That wasn't just because USA consumed everything by themselves. I assume it was a mix of exports and a continuesly growing population keeping this system alive for a long time. If you know reduce the avg salary down to 1/3, you will get cheaper cars (if you even still need people to make cars, relevant amount of people), but still no one can affo…
I’ve been asking myself this question quite a bit lately. People seem to suddenly think China is a good alternative to the US hegemony status. I sincerely hope I’m just misreading things.
Consider it from a European perspective: The US under this administration is more unreliable than China. If Trump decides tomorrow that he's unhappy about something he'll pull some random other thing to bully the other side. You can't do business with that. Rebuilding trust and foreign relationships is going to take a long time after Trump is gone.
I suppose it could be easier to approach a relationship in which the other party is simply known to be an enemy, rather than an ally which might occasionally take a left turn.
> I don't have too much unknowns in my work, I simply have way too much to do. Interesting, I'm curious what work you do? My software engineering career has never been in that situation, it's always so much ambiguity and unknown that trumps everything.
Fair question, and I was vague just so as not to balloon the comment. I work in a financial startup. The codebase is a mess and very much spaghettified. One rework that forced us to migrate our data model from 1:1 users loans to M:N (many-to-many) took two months and touched ~40% of the codebase... multiple times. Huge churn. And it just crossed two months of work, even though it's now in its very final phases. I kno…
I see, so just major refactor, or almost live-rewrite of a very messy code base, but mostly in the medium/small design space. Ya that makes total sense. It's mostly we already did this and have figured out the ambiguities, we just need to clean it up to basic coding standard and code structure/patterns.
codex sub 200usd. in eu it magically becomes 200eur(hello beuracrates) plus vat. You already taxing 30%. That on top that I pay via mine already heavily taxes money. Mistral experience was as miserable as running local models btw.
> hello beuracrates Just in case you missed that class, taxes are determined by legislators
I refer to broader tax. Companies have to pay to friends of regulators who sings off companies regulated.
God... Nobody else would be able to destroy the US dominance harder and faster than Trump... Though the other party was going to do the same - albeit slowly and more civilly. (Obama admn. started the trade war way back).
Fair question, and I was vague just so as not to balloon the comment. I work in a financial startup. The codebase is a mess and very much spaghettified. One rework that forced us to migrate our data model from 1:1 users loans to M:N (many-to-many) took two months and touched ~40% of the codebase... multiple times. Huge churn. And it just crossed two months of work, even though it's now in its very final phases. I kno…
I see, so just major refactor, or almost live-rewrite of a very messy code base, but mostly in the medium/small design space. Ya that makes total sense. It's mostly we already did this and have figured out the ambiguities, we just need to clean it up to basic coding standard and code structure/patterns.
Indeed it's more like live-rewrite; features are still wanted but the rewrite heavily influences them as they go so it's juggling a lot of balls at the same time.
Fable 5 was amazing at helping me with that. Opus 4.8 is... good, really good, but... you have to be on your toes _all_ the time. It gets tiring. But as already explained: it also helped me become better.
That repealing the chevron doctrine was a calculated play in the unitary executive theory. We all know congress is basically useless these days. But we also know that regulation isn’t, like, optional. It’s going to happen no matter what. So what’s left? Where does that decision making go? Turns out the executive, so that’s what we’ve been seeing and it’s largely uncontested. This should have been obvious to most peop…
Repeal of the Chevron doctrine took the power of deference away from executive agencies and replaced it with first-principles judicial interpretation of statutes. Chevron and the unitary executive theory have essentially nothing to do with each other. I’m still not sure what point is attempting to be made here.
Well, I believe the opposite. The removal of Chevron was dressed up as more democracy, but in practice, deployed at this moment in time, when Congress defers everything to the Emperor, it looks more like when the Tsar had to decide every little stupid detail. This used up the precious time of the Tsar, in stupid little details (similarities today, reflecting pool, anyone?) to the detriment of the country, and also in the end, the ruling class.
Repeal of the Chevron doctrine took the power of deference away from executive agencies and replaced it with first-principles judicial interpretation of statutes. Chevron and the unitary executive theory have essentially nothing to do with each other. I’m still not sure what point is attempting to be made here.
In effect, it did not. All it said is that the powers enumerated to those executive agencies must be more explicitly laid out by congress. But, that’s just not something that’s going to happen. So, the gap has been filled largely by executive orders.