It doesnt matter what kind of tax they didnt pay. They SHOULD pay tax. Otherwise this makes it a loophole for private companies to dump research & development costs on the taxpayer but reap all the profits.
Everything of their restructuring was signed off on by multiple states’ attorneys general. And their for-profit entity pays taxes like any other company.
Making them pay tax on stuff they did while a non-profit is making up laws on the fly - a strong, rule-of-law-based system is critical for the US to function properly.
You can’t just arbitrarily make decisions based on what you think should happen because it’s fair or unfair.
If you want OpenAI to pay back taxes, you need to change the laws first.
The issue is not the laws. The issue is that OpenAI mislead officials and externalized costs on the taxpayer.The extent to which this happened should be looked into by professionals.
It's not about changing the laws, it's about enforcing the ones we have fairly. Too many orgs and companies buy politicians, and now ballrooms for them
> I feel historical events maybe after the Victorian age can claim to be theft, otherwise it's just empires and conquest.
It was always theft. Having been done in the past does not make them less theft. The reason East India Company is shown as example for such things is that it is the first human organization that did those on an industrial scale and genocidally.
It was already starving Indians by forcing them to plant opium instead of food crops to sell to the Chinese to kill them for money (20 million/year estimated dead from opium) in the late 18th century. And when the Chinese finally tried to stop it, Opium wars happened. The justification shown for that war was 'Free trade'. The justifications still havent changed, neither the practices. This should tell you why East India Company is specifically evil, because it is the first large scale application of the evil you see today and it invented a lot of its methods.
Right. Its not like recent statistics showed that the US was the place where most of the cyberattacks originate. And its not like both the US and UK are openly saying that they are maximizing cyberwarfare against everyone as if it was something to be proud of. The country that is facilitating a livestreamed genocide in Gaza, is the 'good guys' to be trusted in cyberwarfare, for 'some' reason.
But, then again, in the Angloamerican culture, its always 'others' who are evil. Never itself.
In 2024 there was a study with regards to cyber crime per country [1]. The US comes in 4th place which is still a lot, but doesn't qualify for most. The UK is 8th.
Live streaming Gaza: I could not find a reliable source. As of today there are several webcam etc. claiming to live stream. I don't have the time to watch to verify this. However, there was a news block I place until recently and except for the occasional TikTok nothing on video, let alone 'live'.
Thousands of videos livestreamed on twitter, some by even the actual victims who die at the end of the video. If you havent been able to find any of them until now after 1.5 years of genocide, you will never find them. And not because you could not.
The UK maybe?? The always had a little self loathing tendencies and since they decided their past Empire was actually quite evil, that seems to have become worse.
Wait, what data are you seeing where most cyber attacks are originating from the US? I work in security at a place with some of the best threat intelligence globally, and there are indeed attacks from the US, even the government, but the idea that MOST cyberattacks originate from the US would be completely shocking to me. Is there some qualifier you're not including or maybe you misremembered "most targeted" as originated?
I'm not really trying to get into the political part of it fwiw.
> Their emissions are the emissions of Western companies for whom they are doing manufacturing.
Spoken like somebody that never stept a foot in China.
Sure, manufacturing for the West is part of it, but up to a few years ago, entering Beijing alone resulted in your naval cavities burning, the moment the airplane door opened.
Because of the usage from coal in households. It was only until a few years ago, that they banned the usage of wood/coal around the city. Outside the city, its coal everywhere for the normal class people who own their (country)house. Near other large cities its still very coal centric in the winter.
And the heating (communal for apartments) is mostly coal and while the coal may burn a bit more clean, and there is some filtration going on, its not a ton. So while open coal burning was reduced directly in the cities like Beijing, they simply moved a lot of it outside the 6th ring.
All those EV's ... great, no more gasoline/oil usage but ... wait, where does a lot of the electricity come from? Oeps...
But wait, all that crypto mining, where do you think that electricity comes from?
And now AI...
And the consumer goods.
Your statement ignore a large part of the coal consumption in the country.
The global economy is so China-dependent it doesn't even make sense to talk about an individual country's emissions profile unless we look at their imports.
Nah. They could have just overprovisioned to hell for much cheaper. Boxes at Hetzner cost up to 10 times less than equal level of AWS compute. Just overprovision for cheaper. You have to overprovision on the cloud anyway - you cant risk your users waiting 1-2 minutes until your new nodes/pods come up. So 'cloud is good for spiky load' argument is just a lie we tell ourselves.
Well in cloud you do over provision a bit by setting autoscaling rules in a way that you still have spare capacity while the new resources are bootstrapping.
Likely the best comment in the thread: Microsoft couldnt kill Linux. But AWS did it by adding itself as a layer on top of Linux and literally taking control of the web that Linux liberated by taking over the entire server space in the mid-2000s.
Possible. However what is more likely is that a lot of long-time tech workers have vested stocks or investments in Amazon and they dont want the cash cow (AWS) to get hampered. And similarly a lot of tech workers have invested in AWS skills, so they cant risk those skills becoming less valued in the marketplace due to alternatives.
> AWS may be overcharging but it's a balancing act. Going on-prem (well, shared DC) will be cheaper but comes with requirements for either jack of all trades sysadmins or a bunch of specialists
Much easier to find. Even more, they are skills much easier to learn for existing engineers. What's better, they are fundamental skills that will never lose their value as those systems are what everything else is built on.
