I see this for experienced roles too, especially where pay isn't super competitive. If you need a lead software engineer in a certain city for a certain salary, that often means waiting months for them to come across it. 10 junior engineers may apply but ultimately they just can't perform the role required

Xbox is designed for kids, who's parents don't want them to have full access to a desktop computer and don't know how powerful of a gaming computer they need (people like to claim its cheaper but it really isn't, and it's easier to spend more on fast hardware you don't really need).

Because of this eco-system for kids, xbox has great multiplayer support (including locally for friends), and the software was a clearer focus with less bloat. I don't see xbox market going away any time soon unless people stop having kids

hmmm, that does not make sense. for one, xbox competes with playstation and playstation is definitely not designed for kids.

second, nintendo exists for "family friendly" market.

Nintendo's offering is absolutely the "for kids" console.

I guess kids suggests someone quite young, but my impression was they (xbox and playstation) were built for people in high school and younger, which is why the product makes sense. As OP pointed out, if you were 35 just getting into gaming you'd just buy a desktop.

Consoles like Xbox serve parents who aren't tech-savvy enough to hunt for PC deals and don't want their kid to have free access to the internet.

For what its worth I used to work on a parental controls app startup and this is a consensus I found talking to customers (parents), they like their devices to do one narrow thing so they can control how their child spends their free time. There are of course adults who play it but this is the core of the market, and the strongest value-add in my opinion.

The determining factor seems to be if customers are willing to pay more for it. I can only imagine in time they’ll find rich people need many things, while the poor could have done without all along. Who knew

Well yeah that's classic wealth inequality for you. A fee for import can only fix part of the problem.

Are you arguing for a cap on the amount of stuff a private individual can import instead of a fee? I suppose it would be a bit more invasive, but it could work and be more equal.

I've had really good experiences with Grok 4.6 and grok build. I've been playing around with tscircuit and it can write code with an understanding of spacial reasoning, while also importing cad components from different file formats into tsx, I've been having claude come in and try to error check it and so far claude hasn't found anything to improve in my three projects.

I'm excited for 4.7 although I share skepticism with other users whether 4.7 will be significantly better, since they didn't raise the price.

I love how the list is unironically filled with links to peoples bluesky's. X is a very AI-forward platform with people using it to build the future; Bluesky is presumably filled with old foggies who think 2k lines of code a sprint is impressive.

Oh, we're back to using lines of code as a productivity measure?

"build the future" meaning build a very specific form of future, which not everyone would rather be part of.

NAFTA is no longer a thing, the USMCA has been in effect since 2020 which handles trade between the US, Canada, and Mexico.

The USMCA has no vehicle import cap, however Canada created a separate nationalist tariff to push for Canadian vehicle production, and since Tesla has no Canadian manufacturing facility they have to pay a tariff after the cap is hit.

Presumably, like all things, skills will just become increasingly complex until generating them requires architectural understanding. Also I’m sure there are sufficiently nontechnical people who would be happy to pay $5 for something that just works.

That said, I do think it’s hard to see myself paying for skills. It feels like something that lends itself to OSS

Meanwhile, the AI labs are saying with the models getting smarter skills etc should be less verbose and just let the model do the thinking.

Fair

Yes there definitely are.

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.

Isn't regulatory capture when a company shapes regulation to achieve business interests? How is this the case here?

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.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture

> 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.

What do you mean "not here"? They're looking at video footage of public places, I would not care either. I'm not happy about flock cameras but this is not like he's filling out paperwork for a charge or doing something important, these cops are looking at existing camera data of public spaces