reciprocal tariffs had put the non-tech and tech economy in stasis (except for hardware for AI). they are also are better than tax breaks and will supercharge bottom lines for large corporations once reclaimed and if prices remain high.

also if you want to test/force ai adoption you have to put pressure by firing some

now wars will put us into further stasis or decline via increased inflation pressure.

people have been talking about "models of models" for arbitration opportunity in inference for about 1.5 yrs.

Arbitration idea: if a user doesn't need high QOS of newest LLM, slip them a cheaper LLM, run their query at reduced quality. measure if they cost you fewer $s in the lower QOS. => profit.

For chatgpt the arbitration opportunity looks more like "we could allocate this amount of gpu to training or inference, we are losing money if we offer the highest quality infra"

In addition there's other interesting economics scaling that can be done outside of "models of models" that are far more profitable. I won't go over all of them (and some of them I feel are quite powerful) but the laziest one is that subscription models count on some zombie users as a counterweight to highly expensive single users, and as a source of stable cashflow.

Zombie users are ones that are paying for sub but not actively or barely using the service

They made a big point of explicitly advertising this as a feature with the GPT-5 rollout, no? Routing to cheaper models/less reasoning depending on the input prompt.

There's potentially some discussion of this publicly to investors. I feel there's more going on there and is re: quality issues described above.

This is correct, but neglects the compounding effect.

Insurers are also adding some %+ increase on premiums every year, which is taken as a % of their yearly spend, ie 2-3%.

ie (1+inflation)^N*(base_prem+overpay_prem_increase) = new_premium. The compounding of $ returned is pretty big on this.

That being said underwriting risk, under the law and avoiding correlated risks, is tough.

i've said this is better than tax breaks.

Contracts typically have escape clauses, especially for govt work.

They will just have to recompete!

Thank you!

Knowing the restriction goes to 18k certainly says that either S-A or A-S reach must be limited but the as your post points out no buffer between MANPAD actual range and the limit imposed. I think unlikely to say MANPAD, specifically.

There's a small private airfield to the west with only a single victor airway connecting to el-paso. the victors end at 17999 ft, effectively cutting traffic for non-commercial or non-business jet operators.

Closure of the victor airway there seems, again limiting airborne craft due to airborne hazards.

Hazards in the air, near the surface that are, seemingly, unplanned with a cone pointing at mexico.

That's kind of the most anyone will get until more info, could be some urgent testing of some capability or response to small craft (drones) coming over the boarder. Emergency timing could be to garner interest or emphasize importance, which works well politically.

Las Cruces International Airport and Dana Jetport are unaffected.

The restriction goes to 18k because that's the top of VFR space. Anyone operating above 18k has to be on an IFR clearance and under positive ATC control. That makes it easy for the feds to make a call and say "Hey, center, get everyone out of this airspace" wheras in the VFR altitudes it's very difficult for them to legally clear the space since a VFR plane could be flying around not talking to anyone.

He's also not saying the world is running out of water or clean drinking water... etc.

If you have references for these I would appreciate what you can find.

In general I believe abundance of resources exist in modern society and that there is less and less consideration for the lives of others, not in the "generational trauma" sense, but in the real basics of food, water and shelter.

A lot of people point to hard problems such as the "food miles problem"[1] but are, in many cases, conflicts that drive scarcity for one purpose or another.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_miles

5-10 kWh per cubic meter pumped to Riyadh makes sense if you include the older process which requires oil to be burned to heat water first. Per capita, maybe Nicaragua can afford that. There are 65 countries poorer than Nicaragua.

NAT is not inherently a security feature, however where NAT happens is somewhat important.

A local router that I can control deals with how to map from my public IP to my private IPs.

This is not security but is obfuscation of the traffic.

Obfuscation becomes almost impossible in the IPV6 context where NAT isn't necessary, it becomes optional, and given the likely trajectory that option will be exercised by sophisticated enterprise customers only.

As the article mentions, if you want to use NAT with IPv6, you can. The fact that it's optional doesn't mean that address obfuscation is suddenly impossible.

It means it is not by default, which as we know, is a powerful choice these days.

ie enterprise customers will enable it, consumers will do it if they are tech savvy and your mom/dad/granddaughter/grandson/nephew/niece will have the default option.

when you are at home you will have nat and when you are not you will be uniquely identified.

If you can be uniquely identified without NAT then you can be uniquely identified with it too, because IPs don't contain your identity. You get them from a combination of the network prefix and a random number generator.

There's generally no reason to be enabling NAT when you have enough address space to not need it. It can be a useful tool in your toolbox sometimes, but it's not something to be enabling by default.