Well, i can't think of a better analogy to say that you can't offset doing bad things by doing good things. The karma system some games use (e.g. Fallout 3 where you can nuke an entire city that puts your karma in negatives and then give fresh water to beggars to reset your karma) was what i was reminded of.
Musk didn't commit any genocide (that i'm aware of) but that wasn't what i wrote. The point of my comment is that you can't offset doing -what some people perceive as- bad things by doing -what some people perceive as- good things later.
I hear this repeated so many times I feel like its a narrative pushed by the sellers. Year ago you could ask for glass of wine filled to the brim and you just wouldnt get it. It wasnt garbage in, garbage out, it was sensibility in, garbage out.
The line where chatbots stop being sensible and start outputting garbage is in movement, but slower than avg joe would guess. You only notice it when you get an intuition of the answer before you see it, which requires a lot of experience on range of complexity. Persisten newbies are the best spotters, because they ask obvious basic questions while asking for stuff beyond what geniuses could solve, and only by getting garbage answer and enduring a process of realizing its actually garbage they truly make wider picture of AI than even most powerusers, who tend to have more balanced querries.
But doesn’t happen the same with other tools. I’ll give the same exact prompt to all of LLMs I have access to and look at the responses for the best one. Grok is consistently the worst. So if it’s garbage in, garbage out, why are the other ones so much better at dealing with my garbage?
And not to forget, many (most?) Indians are bilingual. Multilingual speakers tend to skip languages within conversation if both parties are fluent -> training material includes those switches.
One of the main issues with the margin business model (Profit of 5% of a payment for example) is that fraud is leveraged. This means that when you lose 100% of a transaction due to a chargeback or fraud loss, it takes you 20 non-fraud loss transactions to make up for it. The fraud leverage is a huge issue for platforms like this, and in certain countries half the transactions can be fraudsters.
This is silly. US is Canada's biggest trading partner and one of the largest borders in the world. 80% of people live within 1 hour of the border. Free trade has allowed both economies to prosper. Canada has everything to gain with free trade. You are right on over reliance, but free trade benefits everyone.
It takes 2 to make a trade, and the best strategy for an iterated prisoner's dilemma scenario is tit-for-tat. The party that started the silliness should end it, but until then, Canada should rightly consider stronger ties with the Europe - they do share a border with a European country after all.
Depending how you count "borders" and "European countries" they share a border with 2 (France via St Pierre and Miquelon, Denmark via Greenland) and share a landlord with a third.
The best strategy is tit-for-tat with eventual forgiveness attempts. It's way too soon for that (the US is still controlled by Republicans) but one eventually re-opening trade might be optimal, assuming there's still a USA to trade with.
Tit-for-tat inherently forgives the moment the other party stops defecting, in a game theoretic sense. It's "start friendly, every future move copies other party's previous move".
We had free trade. The US has, in a very short period of time, squandered what was a highly profitable and mutually beneficial trading relationship.
There was already a sentiment of distrust in Canada about being so dependent on American goodwill. You can see this in the debates from the 1998 federal election (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gyYjRmM7RDY) on the establishment of CUSFTA, the precursor to NAFTA and later CUSMA. Brian Turner (red tie in that video) argued that free trade in Canada would lead inevitably 'reduce' Canada to becoming a 'colony' of the United States. He lost the election, and the agreement went through. Here we are almost three decades later and, as Canadians see it, those fears are at risk of coming true.
I'm not sure that Americans really understand that this has permanently damaged the relationship between our countries. It's going to be a generation before there will be the political will in Canada to consider going back to something similar to NAFTA/CUSMA again. Even assuming the United States returns to open trade policies again, the question forever on everyone's mind will be "what if another Trump gets elected?".
it is 2025, nothing takes a generation any longer unless you are implying donny and his apostoles will rule america for a generation. otherwise new administration will repair this fairly quickly
A new administration can not promise that somebody like Donald Trump will never be elected again. That's what it would take to repair this relationship.
But at this point, Trump has been re-elected with a greater margin so in terms of national interests one needs to assume the worst case (i.e. these tariffs/behaviour aren't going away).
Would it be better if they did? I think so, but as a European (but very very exposed to the US) I don't think that's an economically rational way to plan.
