It's the same reason that exists for PoW captcha, it's just way more annoying. Also accounts offer traceability versus a new identity every time you want to do something unless you want to go through hundreds of accounts a day.
It's logarithmic so you'd need more like 30,000 magnitude 3 earthquakes to equal the energy of a magnitude 7. I don't think it's clear this is better. You can also make the argument that this may trigger the large earthquake that might not have happened for a long time.
Energy is logarithmic with magnitude, but if the underlying model is analogous to springs being loaded and suddenly released, that model is quadratic in energy with distance.
The article cites 1399 detectable follow-on earthquakes. If each of them represented a movement of earth an equal distance as compared to a single event, each of those movements would be 1/1399th in scale and therefore ~5x10^-7 in energy per event. (One two-millionth.)
But "European data sovereignty" is regulatory capture, although it sort of reads like they had a US parent company to attend y combinator and raise money, but are now moving fully to Berlin, which is what they intended from the start.
Excluding foreign competitors is a classic ‘regulatory capture’-style approach. Regulatory capture is (typically) a ‘bootleggers and baptists’ scenario where there are both good and bad reasons to enact the rules.
The difference between data sovereignty and regulatory capture is that the populace generally wants data sovereignty. The populace does not want big corporations dictating the rules of the trade.
> But "European data sovereignty" is regulatory capture
This doesn't match my understanding of regulatory capture [0] - is there any evidence that this company specifically orchestrated the EU's data protection laws in order to benefit from by blocking out competitors? Would be unexpected, since laws like GDPR predate its founding.
> is there any evidence that this company specifically orchestrated the EU's data protection laws
Companies don't write laws. All regulatory capture requires is for the company to be benefiting from laws and/or policy designed to exclude foreign companies and/or other competition. The point is that type of economic productivity is useless and derived from corruption in a free market. For years the EU has attempted to exclude US tech companies from competing and this is a continuation of that.
And for what its worth your wiki link seems to agree with me, I'm not sure why you posted it.
I never claimed companies write laws, but they do lobby governments to write laws which are beneficial for them. This is well-documented, including in the US, fwiw.
> All regulatory capture requires is for the company to be benefiting from laws and/or policy designed to exclude foreign companies and/or other competition
This doesn't match what the wiki links says (first sentence):
> In politics, regulatory capture (also called agency capture) is a form of corruption of authority that occurs when a political entity, policymaker, or regulator is co-opted to serve the commercial, ideological, or political interests of a minor constituency[...]
Operative word is "co-opted", which sort of fits with what would be required for something to be considered corruption. So no, the company can't just benefit, they also have to have pushed for the specific outcome.
> For years the EU has attempted to exclude US tech companies from competing and this is a continuation of that.
I find this quite hard to believe. Digital sovereignty in the EU only really started in 2025, prior regulation like GDPR has applied to tech companies from all companies, including the EU. The continent has effectively allowed Microsoft, Google, Meta, etc, to dominate the tech scene here since their inception. Perhaps you're thinking of China.
i'm not sure why you're being downvoted. They know more AI regulation is coming, they know what it's going to be, they're influencing it and setting themselves up to benefit. It literally is the definition of regulatory capture.
ARM is merely an IP portfolio licensing company. They don't really design or build anything. And everyone uses TSMC (who uses ASML). The primary design is still being done by Xiaomi, that's the most unique part of this build.
Stop downplaying how big of an achievement this is.
Below is some additional detail about the processor. Like the parent comment notes, ARM licenses IP of an ISA or core designs (see ARM C1-Ultra cores [0]), licensees like Qualcomm then make specific SoC for different use-cases.
Xiaomi has made the XRING 03 boast a larger die size than the XRING 01,
measuring 133mm² compared to its predecessor’s 109mm² dimensions This change
was deemed necessary as the flagship SoC features 16MB of SLC cache, not to
mention a new “6 + 4” CPU cluster that comprises two ARM C1-Ultra cores
running at 4.35GHz, four C1-Premium cores operating at 3.68GHz and lastly,
four C1-Pro cores running at 3.15GHz. [1]
Your initial response made it sound as if Xiaomi did nothing wrt chip design and all the hail goes to "ARM engineers" which is simply not true. Had that been true we would have dozens of chip designers which we don't.
Really?! Did you read the announcement? C1 ultra cores are designed by ARM.
>The biggest cores on the the Xring O3 are the C1-Ultra. C1-Ultra really powerful cores. They support SME2 (Scalable Matrix Extension 2) for matrix/AI acceleration, SVE2 for data parallelism (SIMD).
Yeah, it's really easy to spot an AI made app. I don't want to discount the project for being coded with AI, but you can tell when the UI is basically one shotted due to all the clutter and bloated features. I don't think AI understands that "less is more" when it comes to UI. It always seems overly eager to expose every single control and add UI flourishes to the point of being gaudy.
That pedantic ship has sailed. In everyday communication people use "AI" as a shorthand for saying "LLM," even if they know perfectly well that other forms of AI exist. You can tell this by context, no need to tell people that there are other kinds of AI.
reply