It isn’t exactly what you’re looking for, but you may find this interesting, and it’s a bit of an insight into the relationship between pretraining and fine tuning: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2503.10965

That basically just sounds like Mixture of Experts

Honestly if it works economically, I think this kind of infrastructure project should at least partially count towards NATO targets. Not all of war is moving troops, some of it is logistics, keeping your citizenry relatively happy, and an accumulated history of economic investment. If they can manage to get a lot of that money into workers’ hands, that alone is a huge benefit when combined with the transferrable skills you’re reinforcing in your workforce.

Not that we should have to justify infrastructure as military expenses. But I do think it kinda works.

“We’ve been comfortable for a long time now,” said viewer Leon Yu, 43-year-old semiconductor industry professional, adding Taiwan’s freedom and democracy must be kept.

“There’s still a lot of people out there burying their head in the sand and don’t want to face the dangers of the present.”

Yeah, that about says it, globally.

This is the normal way to talk about changes in deficits and surpluses in English, and it’s not ambiguous, although it may look that way initially. In everyday speech, a “deficit” already means a shortfall or a negative amount. When we say a “surging deficit,” we mean the size of that shortfall is increasing. We generally treat deficits as only positive or zero (never negative), and if it flips, we call it a “surplus” instead.

The phrase that’s been rolling around my head is “credible threat of violence”.