Its possible to care about multiple things at the same time and caring but the one doesn't take away from caring about the other. These deflecting comments surrounding a nascent technology with unknown implications are pointless. You can say this about anything anyone cares about.
This is so funny to imply that you (living in East Jesus, Texas) have a better or similar opportunity to me (living in SF) in making more relationships and connections to AI related companies, engineers, investors, customers, acquirers, scientists, etc.
I live a lot further from SF than Texas, yet I've been working fully remote for SF tech companies (among others) for 10+ years.
If I need to meet someone in person, I make a trip (~few times a year)
It's true that I can't brownnose/service random tech talking heads in person on a daily basis tho, which is what I assume you mean by 'relationships and connections' lmao
Okay so what you're doing is contradicting the objective advantages/benefits of living near the epicenter of a specific industry with a purely anecdotal example of 10+ years experience in jobs from said epicenter, with the expendable income to travel (domestic/international) for in-person meetings, then defining networking to a disingenuously generalization because it reinforces your opinion.
What if I were to tell you that you can make meaningful relationships and connections w/o "brown nosing/servicing" and its easier to do so in the center of a specific industry?
I'm giving you a specific example of why it's not necessary to be in any particular location to work in tech, or network, collaborate, communicate with other tech people.
Directly contradicting your baseless assertion about how you have to be in SF for those reasons.
Literally a specific, physical example and you're talking about 'defining networking to a disingenuously generalization' ...
I truly don't know what to even say. It is futile to relitigate the uncontested reality that there are a wide array of significant advantages to living near cultural, technological, and economic centers that are adjacent to your profession. You live alone in this area where this isn't obvious. I'd even posit you would be more successful than you already are if you lived closer.
Exactly. No one is arguing the historical & material reasons as to why Bay Area is the birthing place of many technological revolutions. The Bay Area is special because of said history/staying power - which has systemic downstream advantages that cannot be replicated. 60% of total VC funding is in the Bay Area alone. Being surrounded by Stanford, Berkeley, etc gives the region a constant flow of world class engineers. Theres just no other region like it and won't be for a very long time.
> No one is arguing the historical & material reasons as to why Bay Area is the birthing place of many technological revolutions.
You're kinda missing the bigger picture - the fact that Bay Area was not always a tech hub, and became one at some point for various reason - which can happen in any other place (and has).
> which has systemic downstream advantages that cannot be replicated.
Seems like a very baseless and meaningless statement.
> Being surrounded by Stanford, Berkeley, etc gives the region a constant flow of world class engineers.
Except for the fact that the vast majority pf Bay Area tech talent does not come from Stanford or Berkeley, and is being outsourced at ever increasing rates.
> Theres just no other region like it and won't be for a very long time.
Yeah except for it has always been a tech hub because the term "tech hub" didn't exist before the Bay Area? I mean the first message sent over the precursor to the internet was from UCLA to the Stanford Research Institute in 1969, and the SF Bay Area having some of the first infrastructure for high-speed internet was a key factor into its position as the tech hub. Mind you this is all preceded by Hewlett Packard 30 years earlier setting the stage for the semiconductor revolution, and even this is preceded by 100 years with Leland Stanford. To much to talk about here as to why there is a unique mix of private capital, industry/government collusion, university research and development, and more that are entrenched in the region.
The makeup of tech companies employees doesn't remotely tell the full story of the advantages of the UC system, Stanford, and other universities in CA through research that feed into SV as the leading tech hub that cannot be replicated (See example of the invention of the internet above). I mean hell, 4 UC alum won nobel prizes this year alone, one of which was the chief scientist at Google's quantum AI.
But yeah sure, if we're talking in the context of "anything is possible" then yeah I concede, it can happen anywhere. Kind of a boring insight. The point is that no - it hasn't happened anywhere else to the extent of the bay area despite cities trying to for the past 30 years- and it won't happen for a very long time because of the converging mechanisms that took place over the past 100 years.
Places where technological innovation and development happen have existed long before the internet and semiconductors. The industrial revolution didn't originate or center around the Bay Area.
> The makeup of tech companies employees doesn't remotely tell the full story...
What? You made the argument that Bay Area has some kind of special access to tech talent because of Stanford - I simply pointed out that the vast majority of Bay Area tech employees are not from Stanford (not to mention many Stanford alums leave California).
> UC system, Stanford, and other universities in CA through research that feed into SV as the leading tech hub that cannot be replicated
> Places where technological innovation and development happen have existed long before the internet and semiconductors. The industrial revolution didn't originate or center around the Bay Area.
You said tech hub. By all definitions of the term the Bay Area was the first. Nor did I say the industrial revolution originated around the Bay Area?
> What? You made the argument that Bay Area has some kind of special access to tech talent because of Stanford - I simply pointed out that the vast majority of Bay Area tech employees are not from Stanford (not to mention many Stanford alums leave California).
You tend to do this a lot. "Many Stanford alums leave California" and "talent is being outsourced at ever increasing rates". Just vague generalizations that offer nothing to the overall conversation.
I made the argument that being close to these universities gives the region a constant flow of world class engineers and researchers. This is true whether or not they work for Bay Area tech companies you understand this right? Regardless, out of the reported feeder schools into tech 5 out of the top 10 are California universities.
You just named universities from 5 different states/regions? Please keep up.
> And several google/deepmind employees from/educated in UK won a nobel prize in 2024... what's your point?
They weren't from the same school? The UC system altogether has over 150 nobel prizes and thats before including private institutions like Stanford, Caltech, USC, and others. Thus exemplifying the unique system dedicated to research and technology consolidated in one region..
> It was more true (but still very boring) 10 years ago, not anymore.
Going to be honest man from interacting with you it seems like you have a chip on your shoulder about the bay. I don't even live there I live in LA. It shouldn't bug you to point out the objective fact that the unique confluence of geographic location, surrounding education system and research institutions, compounded wealth from prior historical industrial/technological windfalls, makes SV the premiere tech hub that is consistently on the forefront of burgeoning technologies - not by accident.
Are you also confused as to why NYC is the finance capital of the world? Do you think Toronto could usurp it one day if they just try hard enough?
No, you said tech hub. Which is short of 'technology hub', which is not just limited to mobile apps.
> You tend to do this a lot. "Many Stanford alums leave California" and "talent is being outsourced at ever increasing rates". Just vague generalizations that offer nothing to the overall conversation.
Those aren't generalizations, those are very specific statements, which go directly against your vague generalizations ('oh but there are good universities in the area for tech talent therefore its impossible to replicate'), and which you apparently can't disagree with because they are obviously true.
> I made the argument that being close to these universities gives the region a constant flow of world class engineers and researchers.
Nope, what you said is that because these universities are located in that area - no other region could possibly compete. And I gave you very specific examples of why that's not true.
> You just named universities from 5 different states/regions? Please keep up.
Yeah.. some of the leading universities for tech talent in the world... which are not in California... (which according to you is impossible)... please keep up.
> makes SV the premiere tech hub that is consistently on the forefront of burgeoning technologies
I never said SV is not a major tech hub. I actually said the opposite. What I disagreed with is your baseless assertion that no other region could possibly compete, or that tech companies have to be in SV to succeeded (which is obviously false, and which I see you shifting the goalposts on now)
> Are you also confused as to why NYC is the finance capital of the world?
Maybe you should rewind to back when NYC wasn't a major finance hub, then apply your same reasoning - 'NYC couldn't possibly become a finance hub, because London is the finance hub'.
Your arguments are self-contradictory and not logical.
> "You're kinda missing the bigger picture - the fact that Bay Area was not always a tech hub, and became one at some point for various reason - which can happen in any other place (and has)."
Lol are we children now? No, YOU literally said tech hub.
> Those aren't generalizations, those are very specific statements, which go directly against your vague generalizations ('oh but there are good universities in the area for tech talent therefore its impossible to replicate'), and which you apparently can't disagree with because they are obviously true.
No, they are generalizations. I have given you myriad examples as to why the UC system and its integration with research and development is unique and doesn't exist anywhere else in the US let alone can be replicated. "Many Stanford alums leave California" means nothing to the overall point (despite 70% staying in CA). Yes, some people from one university leave California leave? Yes? And? "Talent is being outsourced at ever increasing rates". Yes, and? Talent is being outsourced at ever increasing rates everywhere in the US. Outsourcing talent has going on for a long time. Again, means nothing to the overall point.
> Nope, what you said is that because these universities are located in that area - no other region could possibly compete. And I gave you very specific examples of why that's not true.
You did not? You named universities from 5 different states and/or regions. I am actually beginning to be concerned. You understand the difference between what I'm saying right? The 5 schools you named have been around forever.. They haven't replicated what the UC system and surrounding schools have create in the Bay Area. So your examples are stupid?
I didn't even say leading universities in tech can't exist outside of California? What are you even saying anymore?
> What I disagreed with is your baseless assertion that no other region could possibly compete, or that tech companies have to be in SV to succeeded (which is obviously false, and which I see you shifting the goalposts on now)
No other region right now is competing - or can compete. I conceded to your overall vibes-based opinion that "anything can happen" and that yes, in a miraculous set of circumstances held over 50+ years that some region could usurp the Bay Area with tech. I then continued with historical and contemporary examples as to why that won't happen anytime soon.
> Maybe you should rewind to back when NYC wasn't a major finance hub, then apply your same reasoning - 'NYC couldn't possibly become a finance hub, because London is the finance hub'.
Please reference my last response. Yes, New York became a major financial capital (and competitor to London) after 150 years of massive historical circumstances (WW1, Bretton Woods, etc). Perhaps this could happen to the Bay Area in tech, sure - but these aren't happening separately in a vacuum. Whilst the title of financial capital of the world traded hands between London, NYC, and even Tokyo in the 80's, one thing stayed constant, and that is the tech industry remained in SV.
There is no NYC in the 20's equivalent to the Bay Area's London in this equation.
> Your arguments are self-contradictory and not logical.
They are not. Here is my argument in a nutshell: Silicon Valley became - and remains - the global tech hub thanks to a unique mix of top-tier universities like Stanford and the surrounding UC system, early government investment in semiconductors, a deep venture capital ecosystem, and a culture of innovation and risk-taking. Other regions domestically and internationally, have struggled to catch up because they lack the decades of compounding infrastructure, talent networks, and startup experience that can’t be quickly replicated.
Yes and I explained with walls of text of historical, geographical, socioeconomic examples how that is true and your disagreement boils down to "but anything can happen", which is boring in a discussion, so its pointless to continue. Yeah and Des Moines could become the global finance capital of the world, there is nothing you can say to allude otherwise because we don't know what could happen in 500 years.
Yup the Tesla treatment. Can change HQ's all you want but the main engineering work, brains, and talent will be at a HQ in California no matter what. Sam will probably do this for brownie points with the current administration, it will be politicized news for a cycle, but after the dust settles the majority of non-admin people will still be working unchanged out of CA.
That’s assuming Altman is sincerely going to keep trying to develop “AGI” and not try to turn OpenAI into a profitable business. You don’t need AI researchers if you get good enough video generation and pornbots to become immortally wealthy and say fuck the rest. If this is the case, OpenAI could be a completely done product, all that’s left to do is stop spending so much money on SG&A and get those revenue streams cranking.
Yeah waiting to see historical examples of contemporary China being interested in global domination and regime change, especially in contrast to the US.
Pointlessly pedantic. Everyone knows EU is not a country. Also, ASML and Mistral are from two different countries.
That aside, since the Draghi report last year (which was primarily about the innovation gap between the EU/US specifically in tech) and the overall lackluster economic projections, EU officials have been very vocal about losing out to the US (and this time China) in yet another race in a fledgling innovation.
There is without a doubt some level of influence & assurances from the EU behind this deal.
The EU has a very long history of killing entrepreneurship. It is not a coincidence the largest and more innovative companies in the planet are not from Europe despite having both the financial and human resources. This is very unlikely to change now, particularly in a domain so sensitive to data privacy like AI for which the EU parliament is very quick and efficient in launching new and more restrictive regulations. Thinking they are going to have a change of heart now is pretty naive. What ASML is doing is buying a seat in the AI train. They can now flex they are an AI company, and some investors love that. That’s all this is, forget about Mistral being critical to ASML R&D, it is not. Siemens would have been a much better fit for Mistral and vice versa, but that ship already sailed as Siemens is heavily integrated with OpenAI and Azure in the digital factory space.
What would have to change for you to consider it a country? It has a government, there has been talk of a European Army. It has a sovereign currency. If it is the squabbling between constituent states: hello from Canada! Check out our politics.
>What would have to change for you to consider it a country?
For one, having the leader be actually elected by the people and not second hand appointed by corruptible politicians.
And that would never work because then voters would just choose a candidate on the criteria of being of the same nationality as them, rather than on policies, which highlights the EU's biggest fault: the massive cultural divide, and people don't like being ruled by someone who isn't of their own culture because then they can't empathize with them, which is 100% valid point, as what would a German royal like Ursula who grew up in UK boarding schools with private security, understand about the life that someone in Greece, Romania or Bulgaria have when she makes deals and policies that negativity affect the least fortunate, like on energy?
And for two, a mandatory common language. Because over 70% of Airbus Jobs at Toulouse HQ are in French. Same for other companies and countries. So in theory you have job mobility, but in practice it's highly limited if you don't speak the local language.
>there has been talk of a European Army.
Since when do talks equal anything in reality? What can I do with talks? Can I spend them? If politicians' talks were cookies I'd have died of diabetes 500x by now.
There will be no EU army since, just like my previous point, not only do citizens of France won't want to be controlled by a German general, and vice versa, but also all EU countries have their own different geopolitical interests, often in conflict with other members.
So we'll just have mutual defense agreements whose practical enforcement will always be questionable when shit actually hits the fan, because it's easy for politicians to write mutual defense cheques, but when they have to ask their citizens to go die in another country especially a country they don't have cultural ties or fondness towards, those cheques become very hard to cash.
> For one, having the leader be actually elected by the people and not second hand appointed by corruptible politicians.
That's a strange requirement considering the executive of most EU states is not directly elected by people either. Do you not consider Germany or Italy to be countries?
> That's a strange requirement considering the executive of most EU states is not directly elected by people either
At least, it's usually the leader of the party the people voted for in the legislative elections.
In the EU there was this Spitzenkandidat idea floating around ten years ago, but it was never enacted in texts and died at the first opportunity (naming Von der Leyen back in 2019 when she wasn't the leader of the PPE), because the heads of members states (particularly the French) weren't willing to give up their designation power.
In practice there isn't even European political parties, the European elections are just national elections represented by national parties and most citizens don't even know the names of the European coalition of parties (PSOE, PPE, Renew, etc…).
Depends. What is a country? The land borders? The people? The government? The leader? If you take out all the Germans out of Germany and replace them with other people is it still Germany?
My point was that accountable democracy requires direct vote from the people and not via second hand, not that Germany or Italy aren't countries. And if EU wishes to be a country it needs that level of direct accountability which is impossible.
Otherwise if you force it it's gonna be another Yugoslavia or USSR where most people are pissed because they're not being ruled by someone of their own culture that they can directly vote for.
These forced multi-culti nation states under one roof abominations don't work. It's been known since the Tower of Babel yet the elite ruling class think this time it will be different because it worked in the US, a country younger than most universities in Europe.
> Depends. What is a country? The land borders? The people? The government? The leader? If you take out all the Germans out of Germany and replace them with other people is it still Germany?
Theseus' ship? Isn't that "Umvolkung" nonsense again? Philosophy, political sciences, and law have have rummaged about these questions for the last few centuries and have developed some pretty good answers. Of course, they are mostly not simple and all too long and intricate for this forum, but I guess you can pick up any modern book on theory of the state to get your answers.
But I get the distinct notion that you have a certain idea what a country, state, or nation is, considering the conflation with culture, and it is not very embracing of pluralism. I'd wager you'd like Schmidt, maybe Zippelius, but not Böckenförde.
> What would have to change for you to consider it a country?
Almost as many things as what you'd have to change to consider the UN a country.
> It has a government
No it doesn't. The Commission isn't a government, it has no autonomy from the member states as it takes it's orientations directly from the European Council, which is the meeting of the heads of all member states.
> there has been talk of a European Army
There has been talk about fusion power for decades as well, we know it's not happening anytime soon (creating a European army would require all 27 member states to enact a new treaty replacing the current ones, this hasn't been done since they were 15 and the adoption of the previous one was very chaotic and left deep scares). Also, it's very unlikely to happen since there are too much diverging interests (the Baltic and former eastern states being too reliant on US security guarantees, France being too attached to its strategic independence and Hungary being straight up aligned on Moscow).
> It has a sovereign currency
No it doesn't… There is a common currency between some of the member states, but not all of them.
> If it is the squabbling between constituent states: hello from Canada!
Since you are from the other side of the Atlantic I don't blame you for not understanding this well (as I said, most European don't), but the EU really is as close to international organization like the UN as it is from Federal countries.
It has some federal components (like the fact that their is a legislative process to enact laws that are immediately applicable in member states without ratification) but it lacks a good part of it: no army as said above, but also no justice system, more importantly no autonomous budget (the budget is mostly decided by the European Council, the Parliament having pretty much no weight in the process) no ability to raise taxes (with the exception of tariffs, all of Europe's revenue is made of member states contributions, and even tariffs are raised by member states administration on behalf of the EU which doesn't have it's own capabilities). More strikingly it doesn't have a territory of its own: its territory is made of the territory of member states and they can unilaterally change it without the EU having a say on the matter. Two example:
- had Scotland gained its independence through referendum a decade ago, it would have automatically left the EU because it's not the territory or the people that belongs to the EU but the member states (Scotland could have re-joined later as a new member state, but there's no process for splitting a member state without one part leaving the EU, like the UN, see China).
- France has territories that aren't part of the EU, but it can unilaterally change their status to make them part of it (and did for Mayotte 15 years ago) or the other way around, and the EU has no say in the matter.
All that to say that EU isn't a country, it's a “unidentified political object” (this is a quote from former head of the European Commission Jacques Delors).
