Nothing in life is free.

Or "we don't care about respecting stupid laws in your country. If you don't like being blocked, take the issue to your politicians."

But that's the thing, making them outright say "we don't care about respecting stupid laws in your country" (which for us means "we need to continue to be able to sell user data without notifying we do this") is not an "issue", that's the whole benefit of it in the first place.

Anyways, it sounds like a win-win here, they get to not care, and we get to be rejected with clear reasons why, so again, benefits all around.

I wonder why do they censor the content? It's not like the EU can enforce GDPR in US.

>Given that software teams are expensive

In many companies there are 3 to 5 other people per developer (QA, agile masters, PO, PM, BA, marketing, sales, customer support etc.). The costs aren't driven just by the developer salaries.

A CEO can cost as much as 10 developers, sometimes more.

That is why I respect Zuckerberg: he did not participate in Google's and Apple's salary fixing and he is willing to pay new tech hires insane money.

There is something different about CEOs that came from tech.

Do we get better perf or tokens per second with AMD and its software stack than with Nvidia?

The metric where AMD usually comes out on top is perf/$. Or with their instinct cards VRAM/$

Wouldn't be easier and more efficient to just run docker containers?

It depends on what you're doing. Proxmox gives you the flexibility to figure it out as you go.

If you have a plan from the start and you know what you'll need and you're pretty confident it won't change, then sure.

If you want a box that you can slice and dice however you want (VMs, containers, etc) then something like Proxmox might be worth it.

Russia has its own war, they can not afford to militarily support Iran or other countries. They do not have the troops, weapons or money.

And they would totally not enter a nuclear war with US for Iran.

Totally agreed on the last line, but my point was that just because Russia wouldn't do that doesn't mean that the US is "uncontested" at this point.

>The world order we know was built by and for the US when it was the uncontested superpower.

You mean after the fall of the Soviet Union? Because Soviet Union used to contest US power.

>Countries that spent decades being the West's cheap labor pool have risen up, industrialized, built real militaries, and they are not going back to where they were. But the West isnt going to voluntarily get poorer to make room for them either.

So you believe relations between countries are a 0 sum game?

The soviet union did not contest that order so much as exist outside of it. When it collapsed, those institutions didn't change they just lost their counterweight.

aggregate economic growth is positive sum, but the things that actually matter in geopolitics, namely who controls chokepoints, who sets standards, whose currency denominates trade, who has military primacy in a given region are zero-sum or close to it. china getting richer grows the pie. china getting rich enough to contest US naval dominance in the South China Sea does not. both are happening simultaneously. pointing at the first doesn't make the second disappear.

You think we live in a world shaped by prisoner's dilemma?

>nothing to do with socialism

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." - Karl Marx

... that's Communism, bro. :-) Ask ChatGPT to summarise it for you. The Socialism was "от каждого по способностям - каждому по труду".