candu

Well, yeah. That's why we have "research & development" as a term.

What you're referring to is the "development" part of that. In some sense: the job you have _exists precisely because it's not part of the research phase_, and it's equally as valuable as the research part. Research is the proof of concept; development is scaling up and making production-ready and finding small efficiencies and so on.

From an industry perspective, it's tempting to conflate these, because that's what industry research labs are designed to do: integrated R&D. But that is not at all how academic research labs work.

As a Canadian / American who now lives in Europe: IMHO the two-party system and current constitutional structure in the US is an unfortunate local maximum.

It was very definitely better than the centuries of militaristic monarchic feudalism Europe waded through from medieval times until the mid-1900s. It is very definitely worse than modern pluralistic coalition-based democracies with proportional representation, which offer a wider range of choices to voters, and make it possible to launch competing parties / movements to counter institutional stagnation.

Until recently, the one counterargument I would hear to this second assertion is "but coalition governments have a hard time getting anything done". Now that we see a prime example of a government that alternates between a) not getting anything done and b) getting things done that belong somewhere in a timeframe from the 1890s to the 1940s, I no longer hear people making that counterargument.

Re: constitutional structure, one Irish friend I have made an interesting point: in his lifetime, there have been many changes and amendments to the Irish constitution. This is next to impossible in the US system, both because of the party loyalty dynamic mentioned above _and_ because of the incredibly high procedural bar to doing so. (And not least because of the current predominance of originalist thinking in the judicial branch, as though the constitution were an infallible document handed down from gods among men, eternally to be interpreted as the Founding Fathers intended back over 200 years ago in a completely different social, political, and technological context.)

As someone who now lives and works in Denmark: it's sad that so many of us have been conditioned to think 6 weeks severance is generous.

Here, labor unions are quite widespread, and very effective at negotiating reasonably but firmly. As a result, I can depend on 3 months severance _guaranteed under law_ after 6 months at a job. (After 3 years, it goes up to 4 months, and then from there up to a max of 6 months.)

It puts the responsibility for risk of instability, errors in planning hiring / capacity, etc. firmly where it belongs: with the employer.

(And no, the economic sky is not falling here as a result. Quite the opposite.)

> but people have hundreds and thousands on conversation on these apps that can't be easily moved elsewhere.

Except these aren't conversations in the traditional sense. Yes, there's the history of prompts and responses exchanged. But the threads don't build on each other - there's no cross-conversational memory, such as you'd have in a human relationship. Even within a conversation it's mostly stateless, sending the full context history each time as input.

So there's no real data or network effect moat - the moat is all in model quality (which is an extremely competitive race) and harness quality (same). I just don't think there's any real switching cost here.

For anyone who's a fan of the word game Wordle (where you try to guess a secret 5-letter word in 6 guesses): I've been working on a small side project I call Adversarial Wordle. Enjoy!

Some meandering thoughts on high-trust and low-trust systems, and the design choices they make.

TBH there will likely be a _huge_ demand for "digital sovereignty consulting" over the next while, especially in the EU (and maybe also Canada).

Here in Denmark, the previously unthinkable is happening: because of Schleswig-Holstein's leadership in moving to OSS, the Danes are now seeking to learn from the Germans (or at least, that particular set of Germans) about digitalisation! That trend, plus the Danish government's all-in-on-vendors/consultants approach to digitalisation, will likely open a sizeable market - and the traditional vendors like Netcompany have taken a large beating in public opinion themselves, so it's a good time to start something in this direction.

And at the Digital Tech Summit in Copenhagen this year, digital sovereignty (and the lack thereof) was a very prominent theme across both public and private sector talks. As was the comparative advantage the EU has in _trust_, and how that helps e.g. businesses around cybersecurity, privacy-oriented SaaS, and data management expand even outside the EU - which makes it extra infuriating to see continued political interest in things like Chat Control and cracking down on GrapheneOS. This trust is IMHO pretty much the only advantage the EU has in the global tech marketplace, and we're busy throwing it away.

As a Canadian-American living in Denmark, I've seen both sides of this. In short: trust and mistrust are _both_ self-reinforcing concepts.

To take an example - would I want the current US government to be better at compiling information across all its agencies / departments? Absolutely not. What it does with its current level of consolidation is authoritarian enough that I'm not moving back there any time soon. I hear similar sentiments from my Hungarian colleagues, who are quite familiar with competitive authoritarianism in their own country.

Of course, this mistrust becomes self-reinforcing. I don't trust the US government, so I want it to be bad at its job - but then it's bad at its job, so I see it as ineffective and bloated and continue to mistrust it.

IMHO the only way out of this spiral is the hard way: a system must do the hard work to show itself trustworthy, and it must do so _before_ people will entrust it with the information that would make the job of being trustworthy easier. As with human relationships, it takes a _lot_ more work to repair trust than it does to break it. Unlike with human relationships, you also have systemic factors: the system needs an unbroken series of good, principled leaders; it needs to visibly and credibly punish corruption, not turn a blind eye; it needs to de-escalate divisions, not inflame them; it needs various institutional safeguards to work properly, not chop away at them; it needs to allow meaningful dissent and criticism, not crack down on it; it needs to learn from expertise, not undermine it.

Most importantly: the system needs to learn from its failures, and adjust the rules and incentives of the system itself to prevent those failures from recurring. This is generational work.

I see a lot of complaints about scope creep and vision drift here, so I'll add a different perspective: I use Notion right now, but have been considering a switch to Obsidian for a while now (variety of reasons, chief among them a desire to reduce my own dependence on US-based tech platforms and tools).

The lack of something like Notion databases / tables was the last thing stopping me from migrating over; I found this feature really helpful for organizing my thoughts and tasks as I want them organized, and not having it would have been a noticeable UX regression for me.

With this launch, I'll take a deeper look. It's that simple: it provides a feature many want, largely because it's seen as a killer feature of comparable closed platforms.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

There's a gaping conceptual chasm between "publicly funded" and "communist".