golli

I think it's a 13 not 18 and references the assassination attempt

Yes, but the way i read the chart it doesn't differentiate between degrees of ideology; Just a binary "what percentage of the age group votes liberal vs conservative". So at 0 there is a 50/50 there are equally as many liberals as conservatives, but it doesn't provide any information how strong this ideological views are.

Inherent factors could explain different ratios of conservativ vs liberal views in men vs women of that age group, but not drastic changes to such a gap. I'd also rule out brain development as a factor simply based on differences between countries. Human populations do have variances, but not to such a degree when it concerns something this fundamental.

This may have affected my younger brain's susceptibility to extremist views

Or for a positive spin "openness to new or different ideas and values"

Fdroid has automatic updates since this year.

If by that you mean biological differences, then no way. Genetics don't change on this sort of short time scale. It's almost certainly socio-economic factors.

edit: to clarify genetics for something with the generation time and growth like humans, if we were looking at bacteria you could of course easily see major shifts like resistances to antibiotics in much shorter time frames.

Only if the trend between women getting more liberal and men getting more conservative cancel out. If you have a graph like South Korea where young women vote moderately more liberal, but young men become drastically more conservative, then it still results in an overall shift towards conservative values.

My guess (based on no hard facts, bust purely speculation): This statistic is for the age group of 18-29 year old. Young people tend to be more liberal and grow more conservative as they age.

There might also be a political or economic component, but i think age is the primary reason why these graphs mostly show a liberal bias for the samples.

information about a person

Not only one person, but also their relatives, who didn't consent to begin with. You of course don't get all of it, but if you e.g. have the DNA of a parent, then you also get information about their children.

Say for example they have some genetic predisposition for an illness, then their child is probably also more likely to get it. Better hope that in the future there are still laws against using this kind of data for determining health insurance.

How do you profit of a company that hemorrhages a few billion a year?

While it runs a deficit you don't or at least only through increased valuations, which ofc assume that you'll eventually be able to turn a profit. Will this ever happen for OpenAI, i have no idea, but that is the bet. And for the likes of Microsoft spending a few billions on bets like this isn't that big of a deal, just look at how much Meta burns in their VR department.

Even Amazon had AWS, which was the absurdly profitable core business at the center of a cost bleeding distribution center.

Uber was running a deficit for a long time until it turned profitable. It's pretty normal for many new companies to burn money first before they turn a profit. The biggest cost seems to be training new models constantly, and i assume one hope is that eventually this slows down. Then they need to get operating costs down that where i think they currently roughly break even (?) or maybe run a minor loss, but that seems doable, considering the pace at which hardware is still improving.

OpenAI is doing nothing to generate economic value.

I wouldn't say that it is nothing, but at this very moment it probably doesn't equal the immense amount of resources poured into it. That said, if things improve both in terms of the quality of responses you can get from models as well as reduced costs to run them, then there is definitely huge economic potential.

You mean when the board of directors wanted to fire him? Considering the recent news of OpenAI transitioning towards for profit i think they got what they wanted from keeping him in charge. Seems like something Microsoft would benefit from and if they'd have gotten a different CEO at the time who knows if it had come to this point.

spoon theory

Thanks for introducing me to a new concept (or at least a term for it), always nice to learn something new.

Agreed. Future carbon capture capabilities are used to justify current emissions.