BrenBarn

I'm not advocating for breaking laws, regulations, or rules of the nation I live in.

What if we change the laws to remove or limit those property rights?

This is less about the pragmatics of 'possession' and its intricacies (the old adage 'possession is 9/10s of the law' is relevant here), and more about the policies of the governments that rule, and ultimately that answer to the people they rule.

What if most of those people want to reduce the property rights of a small wealthy minority?

Sounds fine to me! I mean, it depends on how much the person owns. But I'm fine just saying "you own too much, you don't get to own that much anymore".

The messed up thing is that we need to rely on LG to stop allowing it rather than just making it illegal.

Why should OpenAI (or any frontier lab) be building these systems if they can't get a secure environment / containment right?

Because it can make a small number of people really rich. That's all that matters.

I'd rather just have a tax based on the size of the company. Little Larry's Amazing Electric Toothbrush Inc. can pay $5 and Apple can pay $500 billion.

It's hypocrisy and unfair, but I think there's a strong legal argument for it.

That right there is the problem.

Makes me wonder if a solar system wide civilization, with trillions of beings, wouldn't invest in ships to go to the next system, extract resources, and create a stream of resources ships going back to the original solar system.

This reminds me of those old 4X-type games like "Stars!" where I would often do exactly this. Basically some planets were good for living on and others were good for mining and you'd have a constant caravan of freighters from the latter to the former.

Realistically, to measure a lot of this stuff, you need to model tab completion.

Great. We can only hope it goes to zero.

It became necessary to delete the data to save it. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_B%E1%BA%BFn_Tre)

Fun! As others mentioned, it's unclear why certain words are rejected. Without clues, there's no reason the player would know which of several anagrams is the "right" one. Seems like it'd be better to accept any valid word, or perhaps have some kind of bonus for finding all of them.

Yeah this happened to me too. A timer with auto-start is a bad combination.

It's nice to see someone willing to act on their principles. Unfortunately, as this person found out, most people are not that good.

More than that, I tend to think that so many Rubicons have already been crossed by Google and their ilk that it's pointless to think aiming at any narrow ethical target like this will make much a difference. So my appreciation for the author's ethics is tempered by a belief that, even if Google had done everything the author wanted on this one issue, the company would still be evil.

I still think there is almost no chance that companies so large, built on such a wide array of unethical activities, are redeemable. I don't see any real solution but wholesale dismantling of virtually all large companies in existence today, and putting in place far stricter regulations that prevent any companies ever becoming that large and powerful again.

I totally agree that there are lots of problems with just assigning the benefits based on coarse categories like "race". My point is just what I said in the quote: a process that seems "locally" unfair may produce a more "globally" fair result. Or it might not! I mean, you have to do it right. But if your goal is to produce a fairer result you might do things even though they seem unfair from a different perspective.

I like how the article has little notes saying "Trivia", when actually the whole article is trivia. (This isn't to detract from it, it's fun trivia and I enjoyed reading it!)

This is a weird take. I don't understand how what this guy did or didn't do with his phone has any relevance for whether kids should have phones or do certain things with them. About the most I could say is that I would agree that many of the problems with phones are problems for adults as well as kids.

The argument has already been made. They argued that their business model would collapse if they weren't allowed to train on a bunch of data that wasn't theirs, and nobody stopped them. The argument will be made even more later, as they will argue that too many companies are dependent on their technology, etc.

No, what we decided was wrong was using race as a salient factor to discriminate between people. That’s why all our laws use that word. The laws reflect the moral principle.

I think this discussion shows that there is fundamental disagreement about that. Many people believe that our laws as written do not reflect the moral principles they ought to reflect (and that the implementation/enforcement of those laws often does not even reflect the principles they supposedly encode).

So, what if you steal $1000 from me and then give it to your cousin?

It depends how you conceptualize fairness. If you believe that some people have a pre-existing unfair bias in their favor, then applying a countermeasure is indeed fair.

This is all talking only about BibTeX info. Is the author not aware that Zotero can store the actual full text of every article, as PDF and/or HTML? That is the real benefit for me. The killer feature isn't organizing the citation information, it's allowing me to browse and read local copies of the actual articles.

Both were pretty influential. Roughly speaking I think a lot of people saw T2 and thought "wow, that looks really cool in a high-tech way" and a lot of people saw Jurassic Park and thought "wow, that looks really realistic". The silvery liquid terminator morphing into stuff was cool, but the natural-looking dinosaurs were cool in a complementary way.

Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?

I think this is pretty grossly overstating things. Yes, chat control is bad, but there's little doubt in my mind that EU regulations overall have been better for consumers than the situation in the US.

You could, but if you have herd immunity, you don't need to, and if you don't have herd immunity, it's a losing battle.

It's more a case for why the US system of government is a failure.

Maybe that means we shouldn't have so many large corporations.

Well, seconds, minutes, and hours are also arbitrary.

Whoop de doo. I'm sure there'll be huge earth-shaking changes in their activities now, right?

Yes, but the thing is just that if people are looking around for new providers it's an opportunity for alternative systems to attract attention and users.

That's actually the first thing that came to my mind when reading about thumb scrolling, since I use a trackball. But that wouldn't explain why left or right handed scrolling would be different.