> it can take anywhere between 6-25 seconds for a response (after lots of thinking) from me asking "Hello world".
That's not an unsurprising result given the pretty ambiguous query, hence all the thinking. Asking "write a simple hello world program in python3" results in a much faster response for me (m4 base w/ 24gb, using qwen3.6:9b).
"To this end, Spain grants to the United States of America the use of operational and support installations and grants authorizations for use of Spanish territory, territorial sea and airspace for purposes within the bilateral or multilateral scope of this Agreement. Any use beyond these purposes will require the prior authorization of the Government of Spain."
"Aircraft flying logistics missions, operated by or for the United States forces, other than those in paragraph 1, not carrying VIPs, HAZMAT or cargo or passengers that might be controversial to Spain may overfly, enter or exit Spanish airspace and use the bases specified in Annex 2 on quarterly blanket overflight clearances authorized by the Permanent Committee."
I want to say upfront that I'm absolutely not trying to say Spain should or even needs to join this silly war.
But the US not being allowed to use the bases it pays and maintains for Spain makes it questionable why it does so in the first place. Iran is in fact a threat relevant to NATO considering most of it is/was within ballistic missile range. It's also a simple fact that Iran's manufacturing base has been supporting Russia's war machine, which has been a key contributing factor in the Ukrainian stalemate. There is some genuine strategic overlap.
Restricting air space on top of that, makes me, originally a more sympathetic American NATO supporter, question the dynamics here. Why should the US help Spain when it's in need in a future conflict?
I don't want Isreal dragging us into wars for it's personal benefit. But this whole conflict has really got me realizing I don't want Europe dragging us into any wars either. The only transactional benefit to those air bases is that they power American global logistics. If this becomes a pattern then I think NATO will likely become nothing more than a nuclear umbrella, even after Trump leaves office. And only as a hedge against nuclear proliferation.
People take for granted that Biden was technically the most Pro-NATO president we have ever had, and likely ever will.
The base is not some favor to Spain. Who does Spain even need defending from? It is a means of regional power projection for the US, granted to them for free as a favor. They've been very ungracious guests lately.
"Granted to them for free"? The US has been paying Spain for base access since 1953. Hundreds of millions per renewal cycle in military aid, economic assistance, and direct spending. It was never free and it was never a favor. Spain negotiated compensation every time.
"Who does Spain need defending from?" Nobody, because of the security architecture my tax dollars built. That's not evidence the bases are a favor to us. That's evidence they worked. You're welcome. And if they can't be used when it matters, I won't lose any sleep if they get closed.
No, specifically, which of their neighbors do they need protecting from.
France? Portugal? Andorra??
The bases are a remnant of American imperialism, they serve no purpose but to further American interest. Any pretension they do anything else can only be explained as late imperial delusion of grandeur.
The fact the Spanish don't let you use them to engage in your unforced act of historic self harm can be seen as yet another favor.
Spain had the largest empire in the Western Hemisphere. Extracted silver, enslaved entire populations, and lost it when we kicked their teeth in during 1898. That's imperialism. Paying someone hundreds of millions to let you park planes on their runway is not. And "which neighbor do they need defending from" is a question that tells on itself. If you still think wars are about neighboring countries you haven't been paying attention to anything happening in the world right now.
> But the US not being allowed to use the bases it pays and maintains for Spain makes it questionable why it does so in the first place.
Why lie like this? I linked the agreement; the US doesn't maintain everything.
"Each Party shall bear the costs of operation and maintenance of services and installations, or parts thereof, referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article which it uses exclusively, as well as the identifiable direct costs for its use of jointly used installations and general services of the base."
"The bases listed in Annex 2 of this Agreement shall be under Spanish command... Consistent with the provisions of Article Sixteen, the security of each base shall be the responsibility of the Commander of the each base... The functioning and maintenance of general services and installations of the base, and the management of provisioning for these services and installations shall be the responsibility of the Commander of the base, who shall assure to the United States forces the availability-of these services and installations under conditions which guarantee the operations of United States units. To discharge this responsibility and promptly and effectively resolve any contingency, the Commander of the base will seek the collaboration of the United States forces. The general services and installations of a base are those which characterize it as such and are essential to the operability of the units."
> Restricting air space on top of that, makes me, originally a more sympathetic American NATO supporter, question the dynamics here. Why should the US help Spain when it's in need in a future conflict?
> After the 9/11 attacks on the United States, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Allies invoked Article 5 of the Washington Treaty, the collective-defense clause, for the first time in NATO's history.
No LLM needed, nor used. Direct from the US State Department!
> Even as a joint contributor I see no reason for the US to pay for bases it's never going to be allowed to use.
It continues to be able to use them. It has never been allowed to use them for things Spain finds objectionable.
Glad we are on the same page, because yes, as you pointed out, it literally says here in plaintext that it was NATO Allies that activated it, not the United States.
I'm not clear on how a semantic quibble that amounts to "Spain and the rest of Europe proactively affirmed their Article 5 obligations to the US" helps your case here. You have, if anything, effectively demonstrated Spain's commitment to the agreement.
If we're gonna go to that level of splitting hairs, then I'd suggest "NATO - including Spain - did it without us even having to ask" is quite supportive of my position.
> I see no reason for the US to pay for bases it's never going to be allowed to use.
Which isn't the situation being imposed by Spain. They're being told they can't use the airspace for one specific military action. They maintain use of their bases in other ways (training, presumably ship refueling, maintenance, etc). They may be able to use the airspace for _other_ military actions in the future.
With only a little sense of self aware irony, one thing I hate about so much dialog these days is how vehement opinions are. I don't particularly like the rounded corners, and think it's a regression. It's also... fine. It's not the difference between usable and entirely unusable. And I see this kind of attitude all over the place now. A slight change, some slightly non-ideal behavior and all of a sudden a product is THE WORST THING EVER. We will be ok with inconsistently rounded windows. I think people need to be a bit more tolerant of design decisions that are opinionated, and likely worse but also not breaking.
I feel the opposite. macOS has had excellent UI in the past, and the rationale was usually that Apple took designer feedback seriously. Designers told Apple that advertisements in the notification menu was a no-no, they warned about layering text on low-contrast glass effects. They stopped OSX' UI from becoming visually bloated and low-density like the eventual Big Sur+ design language. We only get these kinds of issues when the chain of communication is cut: https://noheger.at/blog/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/scrambled...https://noheger.at/blog/2026/01/11/the-struggle-of-resizing-...
If you want ads in Spotlight or Launchpad, telling people to tolerate "opinionated, and likely worse but also not breaking" features is exactly how you get it. It's how Windows got there.
And notably, that page makes this post's title inaccurate. As of this morning, it says `90.21% uptime`, which is a _single_ 9, not 3 (though that's for the platform as a whole, no individual component appears to achieve three 9s.)
If all I want is actual git, I’m pretty sure I could get much much more than 98.98% uptime. The value of GitHub is actions, issues, PRs. To me, if actions is down GitHub is down
As someone who was impacted by GitHub's git outage in late February, which caused us to cancel a feature release, I am more sensitive to the availability of their git service, than their chatbot.
Even if that happened tomorrow, I suspect we'd have _at least_ a decade of people tweaking/optimizing designs on the same node to squeeze meaningful performance upgrades out. Eg, coming up with hardware support for new int/float formats that make more sense for the models of 2029, running matrix operators on ram chips directly, etc.
I remember back in the early 2000s when people thought we were running out of steam on the advancements front. This was roughly around the time when CPU clocks stopped getting faster. Pentium hit 3GHz in 2005, Intel Core Ultra 5 performance cores are generally around this exact speed 20 years later.
Since at least the 640kb quip, betting against progress or the appetite for progress has been a losing bet.
Honestly post 2005 things did slow down dramatically for typical single core workloads.
In the late 90s and early 2000s the mantra was "why waste time optimizing your software? By the time you're done the next gen of CPUs will have made up the difference."
Now the increase is more about moving to GPUs and power efficiency etc. We still have increases, but the rate of speedup has slowed down a lot.
For the core of his base certainly, but he can't win with just them, it's not enough. He won because of the median voter that was mad at the incumbent party for inflation.
> They haven’t been able to fix it with many multiples of that.
which may actually be the problem. I suspect that there is actually some ideal ratio that could be calculated of Input Fields / Dev, LoC / Devs, or maybe Unique Pages / Dev, or some mix of all of the above. Some of the metrics I hear out of places like airbnb absolutely blow my mind (>5000 engineers! wtaf are they all doing?!?). I can sort of see the #s at google, MS making sense given the breadth of the problems they are solving, but other places, not so much.
There was an interview with a lead tech at Uber about this some years ago, with the conversation starting with "why is the app so bloated!?" (in terms of megabytes) and his answer also answers your question:
The smooth and simple interface of the Uber app is the tip of the iceberg. His example was that their users don't (and won't) reinstall the app because they travel overseas. If anything, the time when you've just stepped out of an airport is precisely when you want the app to work smoothly!
The hiccup is that many countries have their own payment systems, Byzantine tax codes where this may or may not be displayed up front to the user (in various currencies and formats), there may be local laws around taxi-like services, etc... Some of those laws apply to areas smaller than a city, or may apply only to airport pickups, or the CBD area during congestion, so on and so forth.
The "core" app might be a simple thing that you can bang out over a weekend with an AI and a decent UI framework, but then you need to "draw the rest of the owl". Don't forget that there must be a matching app for the drivers! Different categories of drivers offering services that may be local to a region and totally absent elsewhere: rikshaws, tuk-tuks, taxi boats in Venice, and who knows what else!
AirBnB is very similar to Uber in this respect. They have to deal with about a hundred countries worth of law, often down to the state level. There's fraud detection. Customer support. Integration with travel agencies. Government-mandated reporting. Etc, etc...
That's not an unsurprising result given the pretty ambiguous query, hence all the thinking. Asking "write a simple hello world program in python3" results in a much faster response for me (m4 base w/ 24gb, using qwen3.6:9b).
reply