The people showing you those interviews have a massive agenda though. Was it BBC? C4? They search for such people until they find them. Some of them might even be fake, the BBC admitted recently to showing fake footage of a Trump speech and if they're willing to do that they're definitely willing to fake other stuff.

Look at gdp numbers or other economic stats. British voters aren't worse off because of brexit. They're told they are and probably some of them believe it, but it's not true, you can see that in the data.

Anyway during the campaign Remain politicians said there would be economic impact. Leave said it won't be as bad as is claimed (they were right), but even if there is an impact it's worth it to regain control over other things. That was their argument. In a vote with 30 million+ voters you can find people who will say anything, but there was no way anyone could miss that message.

They did say that!

Not well known but this was actually the second Brexit referendum. The original decision to join the EU wasn't decided by a referendum at all, a Labour government just did it, despite the profound constitutional implications. So there was no argument for requiring a higher threshold to leave than the join. Arguably leaving would not have required a referendum at all, given that joining didn't.

But when people cried foul about this move in 1973, Labour agreed to hold a referendum on leaving it again, which was held in 1975 and won by Remain. Unfortunately, the way they won was by misleading the public. They claimed the European Economic Community (as it was known at the time) was purely about building a free trade zone, with no political unification goals. Official leaflets sent to households said no federal "United States of Europe" was intended. The Leave campaign pointed out that it wasn't true and the EEC wanted to take over political power in Europe.

The Leave campaign were honest. The EEC later rebranded to the EU, and took over many powers that had nothing to do with free trade. This is one reason why a common comment heard from older people back in 2016 was "I voted Remain in 1975 and I'm voting Leave now, for the same reasons".

Yeah and look at the response to that article ... NYT readers couldn't believe it had been published at all. But you know what I mean.

You are perceiving emotion where there isn't any, just analysis. Maybe it makes it easier for you to dismiss the point. I don't have a position in AMD and don't care what happens to them. It's just obvious what would happen and why they'd be reluctant to swap out their CEO.

We don't know what AI should cost but if you look at the numbers then 2x more expensive is much too low.

Think about the pricing. OpenAI fixed everyone's prices to free and/or roughly the cost of a Netflix subscription, which in turn was pinned to the cost of a cable TV subscription (originally). These prices were made up to sound good to his friends, they weren't chosen based on sane business modelling.

Then everyone had to follow. So Anthropic launched Claude Code at the same price point, before realizing that was deadly and overnight the price went up by an order of magnitude. From $20 to $200/month, and even that doesn't seem to be enough.

If the numbers leaked to Ed Zitron are true then they aren't profitable on inference. But even if that were true, so what? It's a meaningless statement, just another way of saying they're still under-pricing their models. Inferencing and model licensing are their only revenue streams! That has to cover everything including training, staff costs, data licensing, lawsuits, support, office costs etc.

Maybe OpenAI can launch an ad network soon. That's their only hope of salvation but it's risky because if they botch it users might just migrate to Grok or Gemini or Claude.