It's the institutional part which is lacking in France. Look at the budget of the ministry of justice in France per capita and in Germany. Germany spend twice as much and has twice as much judges per capita than France (and everything which goes with it like clerks).
My company took the biggest telecom company in France to court for a violation of our license on a soft, license was GPLv2, we won, but it took 12 years.
Justice is a very poor and slow institution in France. For the same countries the budget of police forces per capita are nearly the same for example.
Also Germany spends more than France on defence while having a lot less to show for, with France having nuclear weapons, nuclear subs, aircraft carriers and a much more capable military overall with less money. Germany is the poster child of government waste. If I were a taxpayer there I'd want my money back and/or bureaucrats going to jail.
Diplomatic cables are not a source of truth, they are heavily biased. The fact they had to be stolen does not give them more weight. There is a lot of bias in US governmental opinion on french technology that such a small country cannot be so advanced without stealing; opinion which started with the french nuclear and space program. My opinion on those discourses about France, China or the USSR in the past are just mostly propaganda from the US MIC to ensure continued funding.
If people without cars could stop subsidizing those with one i would agree (and include the lost land to mandatory parking places in your account). Car driver should pay a specific tax for that. A bus just need a lane on every road direction and no parking (and use it less than hundred of cars).
Which sovereignty in this matter have countries which anyway would not have possibility to develop this capacity in anyway ? Estonia has not the know-how to make satellites, or make rockets or put anything into orbit by itself. Are they more or less sovereign with a shared guaranteed access to such a capacity provided by bigger countries of Europe and or Europe itself ?
I think that such discourse are FUD to prevent any advancement of European integration. Without such development small EU countries would be dependent upon the will and need of Elon Musk or the american DOD.
It is not FUD, it is stating the obvious that "European integration" is happening little by little non-transparently and deceptively. If nation states are to disappear and to be replaced by a federalised EU then it should be very clearly put to the people once and for all for them to decide (my guess is that the EU wouldn't like the answer)...
> Without such development small EU countries would be dependent upon the will and need of Elon Musk or the american DOD.
They're not getting replaced. It's just one think tank who wrote an opinion piece. While it keeps being a "what if?" and some people think it should happen, it has no political traction right now, not among the people, not among the EU itself, and not among the member states.
It means some countries had already advanced hardened satcom capacities (like France which had it for a long time, lookup Syracuse satellites, it exists since 1984) in geostationary orbit, mostly for military use. It organizes the sharing of these capacities between countries immediately, before the arrival of the IRIS² constellation in low earth orbit/medium earth orbit.
The goal is to level the playing field to prevent countries to look for non European alternatives for now, which often happen in Europe when nobodies coordinates the actions of different countries when something becomes suddenly urgent (I do not thinkg it's really, but government must always show they do something, and US companies operating constellations have good salesmen).
Yes, that's pretty much what the quote form the article says. And then IRIS² constellation will be fully an EU system that member states will be able to use. Sounds like a reduction of sovereignty to me at least for the countries that have their own capabilities.
I believe, as an european, that isn't much of a concern. We are very coupled to one another, plenty have family ties with other european citizens, share similar languages within immediate neighbours, and are culturally similar. Even religion is mostly shared. Of course, each has its own identity, not saying this isn't the case.
But without unity each one of us would just be yet another small country with a declining population, unity gives us strength.
The US leadership today thinks they are powerful enough by themselves. Quite a different perspective. Hence why sovereignty there seems to have a more patriotic meaning. I'm sure the states themselves still see the value of collaborating between themselves however.
France will keep having its own satellites anyway for some time and Eutelsat is french too, so for France not so much. I do not about the other countries having current sovereign solutions. But if you take France, Germany and Italy, they already share some military space stuff like observation satellite of optical and SAR kind (france provided the optical part, and italy/germany developed and operate the SAR satellites).
It's the norm in most western countries. Prosecution of administration official is still rare, but nothing like the obvious free permit to misbehave we see in the US.
Maybe they completely reversed the causality, it's a demand shock not a supply shock. There are less users because they died, and they died pretty fast compared to previous opioid users. As demand diminished there was over supply and to maintain their margins provider had to lower the supply. QED.
As it's a pretty simple hypothesis to test and that it was not maybe imply that the conclusion is politically motivated. Supply-shock imply that something was done and it worked, but that the problem solved itself is not as palatable for someone politically motivated like an administration.
> Supply-shock imply that something was done and it worked, but that the problem solved itself is not as palatable for someone politically motivated like an administration.
Problem solving itself by killing the users is also not palatable because the conclusion is that the users are expendable in pursuit of solving the problem.
Since neither conclusion is going to be politically acceptable, why is your default hypothesis that the paper must be wrong because your political conclusion is better than the paper's political conclusion?
Seems people read the blog but not the code, I looked at the stated rewrite of Numpy in Rust:
> As an introductory project, I rewrote Numpy in Rust. It was great fun.
That's not a rewrite at all it's just a wrapping of an existing linear algebra Rust library (faer, blas, etc..) with a more Numpy like API. It seems to me that every AI project I look at is just a mashup/wrapper over existing things. Where are the real bootstrapped new things with AI ? Is there any big OSS project (Linux kernel, postgresql, Django, whatever) with serious bugfixes or new features implemented by AI that we could look at ?
Are so much people in programming implementing middleware / wrapping existing API all day that it gives them a feeling of liberation to be able to delegate those tasks ?
>Are so much people in programming implementing middleware / wrapping existing API all day that it gives them a feeling of liberation to be able to delegate those tasks ?
Yes. A lot of jobs are providing the glue between other pieces like this and not inventing new algorithms and such.
Perhaps this is why there is such a divide in sincere opinions about AI.
> T.J. Green is a Senior Staff Engineer at Tiger Data, creators of TimescaleDB, where he is the implementor of pg_textsearch, a new Postgres extension for high-performance BM25 ranked text search. He brings deep expertise in database systems internals and indexing methods to this project. At Tiger Data, he has also contributed to pgvectorscale, the company's vector search extension for Postgres.
Yes TJ is very experienced and smart. But no he would not have been able to build this in a few months by himself without AI. In fact he uses Claude so much that he goes over the max subscription and spends thousands of dollars each month on tokens to continue delivering this fast.
AI is a big multiplier for experienced folks like him.
> Anecdotally, we use Opus 4.5 constantly on Zed's code base, which is almost a million lines of Rust code and has over 150K active users, and we use it for basically every task you can think of - new features, bug fixes, refactors, prototypes, you name it. The code base is a complex native GUI with no Web tech anywhere in it.
Zed is open source so you can look at their PRs and commit history. They even rolled their own Rust GUI framework for the project so it’s a decent case study of working on code that is barely in the training data (if at all).
This is a thing you can credibly say only if you've never used a popular new non-mainline editor. Sublime Code was "buggy as hell" too; all new editors are. Editors are incredibly difficult to do well. And Zed is doing it on hard mode, cross-platform.
Blas and faer are used only for small corners of the API (linalg and fft) which is exactly what numpy does. I encourage you to follow your own advice and look more closely at the interaction of ufuncs, strides, and dtypes.
> Are so much people in programming implementing middleware / wrapping existing API all day that it gives them a feeling of liberation to be able to delegate those tasks ?
Yes
The overwhelming majority of production code are simply wrappers and APIs calling existing frameworks and libraries
The type of projects you’re talking about are so unbelievably rare that almost nobody starts them or makes progress on them because predominantly they are social organizations that happen to export code
My company took the biggest telecom company in France to court for a violation of our license on a soft, license was GPLv2, we won, but it took 12 years.
Justice is a very poor and slow institution in France. For the same countries the budget of police forces per capita are nearly the same for example.
reply