Too underwhelming. Apple under Tim Cook has been running out of steam. What prevents Apple from having 100s of GPU cores and higher memory bandwidth? They need to catch the AI wave before they perish under it.
So basically, that kills the whole argument about Apple Silicon efficiency.
Which I know is almost a lie, since it's quite efficient but if you really hit the SoC hard you are still getting around 3hrs battery life at most. Of course, that's better than the 1,5hrs you would get at best from an efficient x86 SoC but it makes the advantage not as good as they make it out to be. You are going to need a power source, a later sure, but that's just a problem displacement.
Are you just making up numbers? Power efficiency is relative, and the argument about Apple Silicon efficiency was a thing since M1 and you have to compare it to the competitors at the time. Of course Intel have caught up a lot of ground.
But even if your numbers weren't pulled out of your ass, a 3hr vs 1.5hr difference is a *100%* improvement. In what multiverse is that not absolutely phenomenal?
What model do you want to run locally to do "real work"? I can run qwen3-32B on my Mac with a decent TPS.
And no battery powered device is going to last long running large AI models. How is that an ok thing to bash Apple about? Because they don't break the laws of physics?
In India, if you don’t know the user’s language precisely - just default to English which is the only business link language. Using an alien language like Hindi to non Hindi speakers will backfire badly.
Neither India nor Pakistan can sustain a conventional war for more than 2 weeks, as they do not have sufficient armaments. Both sides also lack an effective defence against short-range missiles and drones. If the situation deteriorates, it can quickly lead to nuclear war as nonrational actors are present on both sides. I hope this situation does not escalate further. Please note that in a conventional war, economic costs of India would far outweigh those of Pakistan, whose economy is much smaller.
India does not have ordnance, nor the capacity to make them quickly. Due to the Ukraine war, the same is in short supply in the open market. 2 weeks is stretching it. Please note that autonomous drones, guided bombs, ESM measures, and artillery power are crucial to sustained wars now. Both countries lack strategic bombers to deliver guided bombs effectively.
EU does not have money to spare. Their economies are on the brink of collapse. They have committed harakiri by sabotaging their own energy security and industrial might. EU do not have they any clout on world stage and will decline. Without US - ukraine is sitting duck.
"Now to be clear, India has no such dish as a curry. No self-respecting Indian restaurant has a "curry" on their menu. They would have a Palak Paneer or a Malai Kofta or a Murgh Makhani - all of which we lump into "curry" - but no "curry"
- This is patently wrong. Curry is a South Indian word referring to vegetables originally (Malakkarry means vegetables). Come to Kerala - you have Moru Curry (Butter Milk Curry) , Erachi Curry (Beef Curry), Tharavu Curry (Duck Curry) etc. The author is a North Indian oblivious of curry history.
"കറി വെപ്പാനെന്തുള്ളത് കാട്ടിൽ,
വിറകിന് മാത്രം മുട്ടില്ലിവിടെ"
I understood exactly what you meant, no further clarification is needed. Take the parent comment with a grain of salt, it is clearly biased as Kerala might as well be a different country with its unique, southernmost coastal-climate inspired cuisine and dishes not seen in other parts of diverse India.
FWIW, I understood exactly what you meant on first reading.
Now to be clear, India has no such dish as a curry.
The wording "no such dish as a curry" is a little ambiguous here as to if you mean a single menu item called "curry" or items from the genre of curry. This might be were people are tripping up. However, you make yourself crystal clear with the following sentences:
No self-respecting Indian restaurant has a "curry" on their menu. They would have a Palak Paneer or a Malai Kofta or a Murgh Makhani - all of which we lump into "curry" - but no "curry".
If someone is saying you failed at making this point, I'm not sure they read the whole paragraph, or are just willfully ignoring the context and are looking for an argument.
I don't agree that this point is crystal clear. If they'd written "They would have a Palak Paneer, or a Moru Curry, or...." and at least included one dish with "curry" in the name, then there would've been no such confusion. But as it stands it sounds to me like it's claiming there is no actual Indian dish that contains the word "curry".
That etymology might actually be wrong. The kari for blackened, burnt, etc comes from കരി where the r sound is a dental flap type r sound, while the kari for curry comes from കറി where the r sound is the typical r sound. So it's more likely the etymology is from malakkarry, which means vegetables, meaning than kari from the blackened, burnt, etc meaning.
Perhaps, but the difference is pronunciation is not definitive evidence.
For example, curry veppu (curry tree) is pronounced with the regular r sound in the standard dialect, but in some dialects, it is instead kariyaappu with the dental flap r sound (the 't' in American English 'atom').
The kari for 'burnt', 'blackened' is also related to 'karuppu' for 'black', which is pronounced with the regular 'r' (like curry) instead of the dental one.
> Curry is a South Indian word referring to vegetables originally (Malakkarry means vegetables)
FWIW, Kannada has no such word. ಕರಿಬೇವು ("karibevu") refers specifically to the curry plant and (as far as I know) there is no word "kari" which refers to curries in general.
My parents had always told me that "curry" was, therefore, a generalization and anglicization of various dishes containing curry leaves. But seeing as "kari" is a word in several other South Indian languages, perhaps Kannada is just the odd one out.
Around 2002-03 - Motorola had RT Linux in EZx range of touch phones (https://www.gsmarena.com/motorola_a760-392.php). They were also working on a Linux based smartphone platform which was fairly advanced before scrapping it in 2004. Been a part of those teams. Do not think it is easy to introduce another smartphone platform right now without strong differentiation given the network effects. Something on wearables might still work.
While that is true on rhetoric - on practice it is not. While 60% of bills went through parliamentary scrutiny prior to 2014 - the number today is just above 10%. Also Modi has the distinction of passing maximum bills without debate and bypassing the state senate altogether.
I also need clarification on what he means by Modi bypassing parliament to pass his own bills. That’s not how a parliamentary system works. Imagine Tony Blair bypassing the House of Lords and the House of Commons to pass his own bill. Or Obama bypassing the Senate and House of Representatives to pass his own bill. It’s a very strange claim to me.
Not GGP, but I assume they mean that bills were passed through parliament without any real debate or amendments, since the governing party holds a super majority.
The UK has done the same when having a party majority in the House of Lords and House of Commons.
In the US things are different. Even if there is a party majority in the Senate and House, the Filibuster is powerful enough to table the party majority’s bills.
Unfortunately, the way things proceed in India tend to be more crass - where the opposition often tries to physically prevent the tabling of controversial bills. We've had occasions where members grabbed papers off the Speaker's desk, and members routinely try to block proceedings by entering the well of the House and sloganeering. This leads to the Speaker adjourning the session and/or the opposition staging a walkout during the actual vote. It's not uncommon to see parliamentary sessions with only the treasury benches full for the vote.
Maybe India takes inspiration from her colonizers?
"How did the British Parliament become a place where the person speaking is constantly interrupted while the US Congress is one where the audience is quiet?"
Answer:
"It didn’t become such a place, it always was such a place. It started life as a collection of people sent by various towns to meet the King to petition him for some action or other. It was a totally formless group of individuals admitted to the King’s larger meeting hall when and if the King permitted. As such they would shout over each other in the attempt to get the King’s attention. Over the centuries it became more formalised and more structured, and a modicum of order imposed. But it has always had the character of a rowdy everybody against everybody discussion rather than an academic debate.
Famous Parliamentarians, particularly Winston Churchill, have enjoyed it being so and encouraged it. The width of the gangway is still two swords lengths, so they cannot engage swords across it, and the cloak rooms outside still have ribbons intended for you to hang your sword before entering the chamber. Parliament values its traditions of being a barely orderly town meeting."
I don't know how accurate that answer is, but it was the top comment in quora. Other sites show similar answers.
Makes sense that it's the system we inherited. For what it's worth, I'd rather have my representatives voice dissent loudly rather than compliance. I wish that dissent was channelled productively rather than show for the TV cameras, but alas, that's what we've got. I do think it's a superior system to the two party US system, especially for such a large and diverse nation like India. It desperately needs reform, though.
The party holds a simple majority (~ 55%) in the Lower House, while the alliance holds a near super majority (~ 63%) - the Indian system holds a super majority at 2/3rds of each house present and voting, not the total membership of the house.
The alliance does not hold the upper house, though they have a near simple majority.
1984: Rajiv Gandhi’s Congress Party got a super majority (77%)
1980: Indira Gandhi’s Congress Party got a super majority (65%)
1977: Indira Gandhi's Congress Party got a majority (56%)
1971: Indira Gandhi's Congress Party got a super majority (68%)
1967: Indira Gandhi's Congress Party got a majority (55%)
1962: Nehru's Congress Party at 73%
1957: Nehru's Congress Party at 75%
1952: Nehru's Congress Party at 74%
If the complaint is, "Supermajorities aren't a Democracy", then it must be agreed upon that India hasn't been been a Democracy under the Congress Party for 32 years out of the 75 years of independence.
> If the complaint is, "Supermajorities aren't a Democracy"
Is anybody actually saying that? For what its worth, I do think super majorities are corrosive long term for the multiparty Westminster style parliamentary systems. There is little incentive for compromise building or genuine debate on bills. It might even work if political parties had visible internal debate and discussion, and we can largely agree that this is not a thing in Indian political parties.
The original claim was that the senate was bypassed (non-democratic).
A majority in the Senate is democratic if democratically elected etc.
I'm not sure what this means - that the NDA government could bypass the Rajya Sabha for 90% (the number quoted in the original claim) of bills? That doesn't make sense. I don't see how that is even possible.
The only way that the Rajya Sabha can be effectively bypassed is by the Lok Sabha speaker certifying a bill as a Money Bill (famously, the Aadhaar Bill was a Money Bill). In that case the objections raised by the Rajya Sabha are non-binding on the Lok Sabha and can be rejected by the lower house, and is deemed to have passed after 14 days. I do not think that 90% of bills introduced by the Modi government were Money Bills. So how does the claim of 90% work?
>>Also Modi has the distinction of passing maximum bills without debate and bypassing the state senate altogether
I think this comment can be interpreted that way to some extent. Reads like one person has the power to bypass an entire legislative house. That's not the reality though.
I do agree with you that having supermajority for a long time is not a good thing. Unfortunately for India, that's how it has been historically (Congress for long periods of time and now it looks like BJP)
The three routes Mr. Modi government has chosen to bypass parliamentary scrutiny and oversight on the law it creates are by bypassing parliamentary committee or passing them through ordinances or as money bill:
A sad consequence of one political party having a majority in the parliament. Modi supporters tout it as a harbinger of efficiency bill passing when in reality it's just eroded democracy.
Thank you. The minority rights and individual rights are cornerstone, democracy does not mean majority act as Emperors. There has to be strong guaranteed equal rights to all individual and minorities that allows them equal opportunity and recourse.
Its foundation is that all agree what we should all have as rights were we to ever find ourselves the minority, and those become the principles we cannot break and we owe to each individual to uphold. Beyond that, majority can decide, hopefully not stupidly and still considering minority's input, as any good leader should do, consider all data points relevant to best decision making.
A majority in a parliamentary system still allows some room for debate and dissent since MPs are, in principle, representatives of their constituency and not of the party. However, in India, it is illegal for an MP to vote against the party line - that is grounds for their disqualification - due to the anti-defection law. Any debate is pure theatrics at this point and the party leadership is free to pass any law they want.
> in India, it is illegal for an MP to vote against the party line
That is not true at all. Anti-defection law is applied when elected officials run on a party and once elected decide to change their party affiliation. Not for individual bills.
The Anti-Defection Law can very much be applied if a legislator votes against a party whip, even for a bill. There are calls to limit its applicability only to votes on the government, but that is currently not the case.
Quoting from PRSIndia [1]:
Does the anti-defection law affect the ability of legislators to make decisions?
The anti-defection law seeks to provide a stable government by ensuring the legislators do not switch sides. However, this law also restricts a legislator from voting in line with his conscience, judgement and interests of his electorate. Such a situation impedes the oversight function of the legislature over the government, by ensuring that members vote based on the decisions taken by the party leadership, and not what their constituents would like them to vote for.
Political parties issue a direction to MPs on how to vote on most issues, irrespective of the nature of the issue. Several experts have suggested that the law should be valid only for those votes that determine the stability of the government (passage of the annual budget or no-confidence motions).
It's not a perfect system, but the provisions of the Anti-Defection Law tried to address what was a bigger issue in Indian politics - legislators changing sides for what turned out to be enormous sums of (undisclosed) money. In this climate, the incumbent party could bribe opposition members to prop up the government, and attempts to poach new legislators right after the elections reached ridiculous levels.
For what it's worth, while this does hinder a legislator from voting as per the will of their constituents even where they are at odds with the party line, within the Indian political system there are so many special interest parties that differ from each other in minor details of policy. In theory, the will of constituents could have been made manifest by voting for the policy adjacent party instead.
Again, it's not a perfect system, but it's attempting to fix the obvious issues that arose in India.
> In what way is this a functioning parliamentary system then?
You can ask other parliamentary systems the same questions. For example, the Australian Labor Party requires its members to pledge their support for the collective ui decisions of the caucus, which prohibits them from "crossing the floor" as well.
Just as importantly, the Anti-“Crossing the Floor” law was passed in 1985 by the Congress Party under the leadership of Rajiv Gandhi (Son of Indira Gandhi, Husband of Sonia Gandhi, and Father of Rahul Gandhi). India’s been functioning under that system for almost 40 years, and I doubt Rahul Gandhi and Congress Party will repeal that law when they come back into party. That’s because it’s their law. They wrote it.
Explicitly? No. At no point does a member sworn in as an MP have to then swear to affirm their party affiliation. In practice, however, the Anti-Defection Law deems anybody voting against the will of the party to have vacated their membership of the party, which can then be pursued to strip them of membership of the house.
Not at all. It's highly unusual for a politician to speak against the party line on a bill, if at all. The only time we ever see fracturing, if any, is around the elections, where dissatisfied members may break away or switch parties. It's not uncommon for people to switch allegiances if they were refused an election ticket as the party candidate, or for higher level politicians to form break away factions if refused the Chief Ministerial position, for example. The Anti-Defection Law allows breakaway factions only if at least 1/3rd leave en masse.
It's a feature of a multi-party parliamentary democracy - when a candidate is a representative of a party standing for any elections, and wins it, it is assumed that people voted for the candidate partly because of the electoral promises and visions of the party. Thus, if a party has made a promise to the electorate to enact some major law, and issues a whip in Parliament that all its representatives should support its passage, then they are legally bound to do so. They can still choose to abstain or even vote against it. But then the party can take action against them. (Note that this is only applicable when a party issues a whip, which democratic ones do only for laws it considers important.)
To be fair, in many parliamentary systems it is very unusual for any one party to have an absolute majority. In most such systems, the winning party of an election often only wins a plurality of votes, and has to woo other parties to govern - either through a coalition or just a minority government.
Sure, though the UPA was still short of even a simple majority in the Lok Sabha, and was held up by outside support from the Left Front. The BJP's simple majority in the Lok Sabha from 2013 onwards is the first time any single party has held a majority since the 80s.
Many countries operate like this. It's the downside of having a parliamentary system (which IMO is better than a presidential one).
Greece and Japan are good examples. Canada to a certain extent too in the past (with the LPC).
In a presidential democracy, if the Senate and House of Representatives is majority Democrats, then yes, the Democrats can do the same. Obama once had majority in House of Reps and Senate as well.
There is one thing that is different. The Filibuster is very powerful in the US. I’m not so sure the filibuster is a powerful tool in UK’s parliament and India’s Parliament.
> There is one thing that is different. The Filibuster is very powerful in the US. I’m not so sure the filibuster is a powerful tool in UK’s parliament and India’s Parliament.
The filibuster isn't a thing in the Indian system, but even in the US it can be broken by a super majority - which the governing alliance in India does have. Besides, the filibuster has rarely been used in recent times - more often than not, it's simply the threat of one.
The idea is that 4-hours work weeks for relatively highly skilled knowledge workers will actually help lower the costs for the social security system (less burnouts, early retirements) and a more productive society (instead of 'grinding out' pointlessly long hours, work less and contribute to society in your free time) -- work is merely one way to be productive in society.
>How will they handle this and still emerge unscathed while competing with China and India and Indonesia and the likes.
This isn't even accurate. What is EU competing with China and India on? It should the reverse if anything, how will India and China compete in High Tech and Precision Manufacturing with the West when they are suffering massive brain drain?
Sheer numbers and growth rate. China and India are huge markets and growing. Europe is a mature market which is stagflated. US has some more growth left.
Agreed on all points. Europe should serve as a warning to the rest of the world of what happens when you become complacent- the decline from earlier centuries to now is just staggering and shows no signs of slowing. Many of the lauded social benefits aren't actually sustainable long term and the stifling business climate has forced governments to become increasingly protectionary which is a death spiral for competitiveness long term.
Immigration -- they'll be a move to a two-tired (zero-hours, contract-only, fire-at-will) base largely made up of the young and immigrants. Then gold-plated 4d work-from-home jobs for 45-65s.
Higher import tariffs are a mid term solution, but in the end nation states and national governance are dysfunctional concepts for an ultimately globalized world.
I'm from Rome, Italy and I feel like I'm on a sinking boat where everyone is enthusiastically carving holes in the bottom.
My grand-parents bought a house to my parents when they were 27.
My parents had it easy and never learned personal finance.
They refused to lend me 30k to start a mortgage for the house in Budapest, Hungary despite having 2 young kids because they didn't trust Hungary stability and wanted me to go back to Italy.
They have been keeping 60k in their checking account for the past 10 years.
I've tried to convince them to invest a part of it in ETF but my father wrote me that: "They have invested in the Italian social security system and they have no need for other investments other than their government pensions and the house they own".
Real estate value in Rome has declined 30% since 2012.
I have been telling them about the population decline and how the pension system is gonna go belly up in the future.
Then Elon Musk also tweeted about Italy grim population collapse future last month.
I told my father in great distress that I was sadly right.
He told me I'm working too much and I need to relax and essentially he won't be taking advice from me because I'm not thinking straight, implying I need medical attention.
