NAL, but looks like they're alleging something like negligence & deception. Addictiveness is just the mechanism of harm, so doesn't require a strict general case: just actual harm and the prior knowledge thereof.
So like the general argument is "company X was causing material harm, knew they were causing harm, and actively decided to continue causing harm while covering it up."
It'd be similar to suing someone who sold a dangerous toy under the label "safe for all ages". The lawyers don't need to ban specific features (sharp edges, fast motors, etc.). They just have to argue the way it's put together harms kids, the company knew about it, and they kept lying about it anyway.
The remediations could therefore be case-specific. They don't need to ban infinite scroll in general, just ban Meta from applying it to their products, since it's known to be harmful in that context.
100% yes. Remember, this is somewhat adversarial: Meta increases its products addictiveness year by year. Banning individual practices fails if the rate of that growth exceeds the impact of point solutions.
Yea, that's his point. The gold standard neither prevents nor encourages inequality, except inasmuch as it limits policy flexibility (which, similarly, could be used to promote or limit inequality).
The gold standard mechanistically is a driver of wealth inequality, due to its deflationary effects and lack of a governmental mechanism to create more of it. It is not the only driver of wealth inequality, but when we used it that is what it did.
Policy flexibility is the only one of those that’s in theory responsive to democratic governance. Your opinion of whether that’s a good thing or not depends somewhat on which side of the inequality you’re on, I think.
NAL, but have worked in this. Griggs is a bit more complicated than that, and its progeny modify application anyway.
The TLDR is that arbitrary tests are permissible if there's no disparate impact. Tests with disparate impact are permissible iff they are not arbitrary (i.e., "directly" assess job responsibilities).
So, for example, Leetcode may have disparate impact, but it's "direct" enough to be permissible. On the other hand, most "AI Assessments" are actually so badly implemented that they're effectively random - and a coin flip won't have disparate impact.
How long would it take an aggressive company to expand production capacity? I always thought it takes a few years, at minimum, for even established players to stand up new fabs
As far as I can tell, Micron and SK Hynix are using EUV lithography and may be constrained by availability of the equipment, whereas CXMT does not have EUV machines. There were reports that EUV lithography is needed for high yields, but CXMT appears to be proving that wrong.
The industry is so naturally prone to oversupply that the only stable equilibrium is undersupply. Aggressive expansion kicks off a price war, which immediately undercuts the logic of the expansion.
This only changes with new entrants, which will come, especially from China. But it takes time to build fab capacity, so the medium-term modal outcome is consistent undersupply.
Over a decade ago, my orientation at UChicago included the traditional "Aims of Education" address. They packed the whole first-year class into the chapel to explain, at length, that this education will not be "useful."
You're not supposed to make more money, or be happier, or really become anything other than a better version of yourself.
I didn't have such experience in my local polytechnic, but my friend went to study Theoretical Physics at the best university in the country. He told me, that right at the beginning of the very first day they gathered all freshmen in a hall and their old rector came to them. He said almost literally this: "here are a hundred of you, all wanting to learn physics, but we only need one". And eventually they did have that "one", he is a top researcher somewhere in America nowadays, he told me. And my friend finished masters there, completing all the hard study, got physics diploma, aaand... went to work as an accountant (he's CFO now, got a secondary MBA later). There is really not a high demand for theoretical physicists, even internationally :) .
UChicago should be pretty uniquely positioned to address the problem of AI writ large. They already require a full year of each philosophy, literature, and history (all through primary sources). This "Core" should already be fairly AI-proof, given they are primarily small-group, discussion-driven courses; oral exams, in-class essays, or even graded discussions should be straightforward adaptations.
And yet, the university shifted towards professionalism before AI ("training a mind for the workforce" rather than "the good life").
Already, this transition did what the author observes AI is doing. I would hardly believe someone who cheats through an econ/stats major is less educated - if only through osmosis - than someone who honestly completes Business Economics.
And so I wonder - if the damage of AI is primarily instrumental to the broader trend of hyper-professionalism, what damage has it actually done?
If we automate away the signal to companies "yes, I can do stats for you," does that free students to focus more on the _less_ professional aspects of education?
Sure, it undercuts credentialism, making the "piece of paper" near worthless - but if our aim of education is just to "be better," should that not give us hope?
If the signal to corporations disappears the wage premium to a college education disappears and the students disappear along with the tuition paying the professors’ salaries.
The credential was certainly something - a more easily understood distillation of the of connections and status that got you there. But that's not exactly professional the way a degree in Business is.
Besides, were there not other high-minded notions that underpinned that credential - ideas of self-development and virtuous leadership? And more crass notions of polish and status? Were these not the self-justifications of these elites, made manifest through the institutions?
As a side note - I do strongly suspect elite schools will bring these ideas back. If not for virtue, for necessity - as schools seek to self-justify in ways that go beyond the dollars they risk losing.
Maybe - to your point, if we think of happiness as like “living one’s own purpose fully”, then yes, it does very directly.
But I was referring to happiness more generally as enjoyment, joy, satisfaction - that type of thing.
And in that case - there are plenty of ways being better = less happy. Eg if I were to sacrifice myself to save my family, then that’s the best version of me, but I’d be pretty dang unhappy about it.
This... can't be a signal of strength. There's a fine line between being agile and being erratic.
AI investment makes total sense as a proximal explanation. Minimize debt by trimming OpEx, then reinvest in compute. Seems smart.
And yet - this is what, the third layoff in 5 years? And weren't they doing aggressive performance cuts too? Are they workforce planning in 12 week sprints or something?
This reminds me of an overspending sports team: just toss together overpriced players/coaches, underperform, fire them all, do it again.
They have done more targeted layoffs as well like the FAIR layoffs in 2025 and the RL layoffs in January 2026, as well as the 5% performance cut in February 2025.
I think it's more like a restaurant offering both candy and burgers.
When candy sales outpace burgers, they're naturally going to invest more in candy. Eventually, they start to compete more with Hershey's than McDonald's.
I guess the problem with this analogy is that it fails to capture the essential nature of Facebook: that its base product ("hamburgers") has a network effect, and the new product ("candy") doesn't.
If Facebook is a social network for seeing my friends, then there's nowhere else for me to go. They're on Facebook and it's unlikely they're all going to join some new network at the same time.
If Facebook is a high engagement content farm designed to shove random engagement-bait in my face, then it's just competing with Reddit, Digg, Twitter, 4chan, TikTok. Folks can get addicted to this in the short term; but they can also get bored and move on to another app. Based on conversations with all the IRL human beings I know, this is what they've all done. (The actual question I have is: who is still heavily using the site? Very old people?)
What I constantly see, are businesses that would be just fine continue doing the same, but die instead because they tried to evolve into something and alienated all their existing customers/users and couldn't attract new ones because what they evolved into made no sense. But no, businesses want to take over the world (or at least have a large slice from the pie) so they "evolve" no matter what.
This isn’t quite true. There are many businesses like Colgate that are steady state with a reasonable amount of growth that do fine in the stock market.
Numbers can naturally go up with the population, unless the product stays the same and newer generations decide they don't want it. Facebook suffered a double hit from both changing the product to scrollslop instead of a way to check on friends, and from becoming "uncool" with young people because it's what their boring parents used.
Infinite growth!!!
How silly we still are as a species. The more of us there are, the stupider we act, and we don't even do anything to prevent it, we just let the consequences of our own stupidity roll over us one day, when they can no longer be stopped.
So like the general argument is "company X was causing material harm, knew they were causing harm, and actively decided to continue causing harm while covering it up."
It'd be similar to suing someone who sold a dangerous toy under the label "safe for all ages". The lawyers don't need to ban specific features (sharp edges, fast motors, etc.). They just have to argue the way it's put together harms kids, the company knew about it, and they kept lying about it anyway.
The remediations could therefore be case-specific. They don't need to ban infinite scroll in general, just ban Meta from applying it to their products, since it's known to be harmful in that context.