DeepSeaTortoise

IMO you highly underestimate the amount of processing and storage video surveillance requires. There is just no good way to determine if you took that pen or made the newly illegal handgesture towards the wrong person 12 years ago unless you have enough storage to keep all the footage around and the processing power to search through it or prepare it for new types of queries in reasonable time.

Also, have you considered AI being necessary to fill in for missing surveillance footage if the cameras are failing (the ruling class)? E.g. the whole Epstein (PR) disaster could have been avoided if the cameras could have been kept running and the footage post-processed in time.

To me the major distinctions are near full functionality even if I'm offline and the app hasn't been used in a long time and offline-first design with all major assets being available for download ahead of time and/or transferable between devices without re-downloading

Right, of course it's those who had the most time to accumulate wealth in the wealthier nations and professions who are most opposed to one of the most expensive subscriptions in history taking over more and more professions.

Doing it on demand still utilizes their cached version, so it saves a trip to the origin, but doesn’t require doubling the cache size. They can still cache the results if the same site is scraped multiple times, but this saves having to cache things that are never going to be requested.

Isn't this solving a slightly, but very significantly different problem?

You could serve the very same data in two different ways: One to present to the users and one to hand over to scrapers. Of course, some sites would be too difficult or costly to transform into a common underlying cache format, but people who WANT their sides accessible to scrapers could easily help the process along a bit or serve their site in the necessary format in the first place.

But the key is:

A tool using a "pre-scraped" version of a site has very likely very different requirements of how a CDN caches this site. And this could be easily customizable by those using this endpoint.

Want a free version? Ok, give us the list of all the sites you want, then come back in 10min and grab everything in one go, the data will be kept ready for 60s. Got an API token? 10 free near-real-time request for you and they'll recharge at a rate of 2 per hour. Want to play nice? Ask the CDN to have the requested content ready in 3 hours. Got deep pockets? Pay for just as many real-real-time requests as you need.

What makes this so different is that unless customers are willing to hand over a lot of money, you dont need to cache anything to serve requests at all. Potentially not even later if you got enough capacity to serve the data for scheduled requests from the storage network directly.

You just generate an immediate promise response to the request telling them to come back later. And depending on what you put into that promise, you've got quite a lot of control over the schedule yourself.

- Got a "within 10min" request but your storage network has plenty if capacity in 30s? Just tell them to come back in 30s.

- A customer is pushing new data into your network around 10am and many bots are interested in getting their hands on it as soon as possible, making requests for 10am to 10:05? Just bundle their requests.

- Expected data still not around at 10:05? Unless the bots set an "immediate" flag (or whatever) indicating that they want whatever state the site is in right now, just reply with a second promise when they come back. And a third if necessary... and so on.

You can never just use existing resources as long as those end up in places they're no longer accessible to the market anymore.

Cash just about never sits just around as long as whoever holds onto it has no current need for extremely liquid assets. Like insurances.

I doubt that the ratio of cash that ends up bound up that way to the one that doesn't changes a lot overall.

The real problem to UBI is governments creating income via debt, IMO.

Interesting, never heard anyone calling some place a Tier 1.5 city. Is this a recent development as "almost official" as the Tiers itself, something obvious I just never picked up on or people taking pride in their Tier 2s doing really well?

Also why does the Tier list keep expanding downwards? Wasn't being called a Tier 4 basically exclusively an insult? Sub culture not being satisfied with just embracing rotting anymore, but now racing for the bottom of the sea?

$5 is probably too much, tho. I'd be looking more at the $.2 to $1 range.

Maybe a 3 to 4 tier inbox. Known and trusted user being able to contact you without paying, a high value inbox for the $1+ range, a low value inbox for the $.2 range emails wont be auto-deleted in and a very low value inbox emails will be deleted in depending on the amount paid, with free mails being gone within e.g. an hour, all the way up to e.g. a month for $.19 mails.

Then unify those inboxes and set up notifications to the users' likings.

Also, I'd normalize e.g. 10% going to the e-mail service providers and enshrine that amount into the protocol right away. Otherwise the protocol wont get a lot of attention from the major providers and if it does, the provider taking his share is going to become normalized anyway. But then the split isn't going to be in favor for the users. Which isn't negative per-se, but it'd be nice to have at least one type of service where this is split is reversed. And it is fair to assume whoever takes the larger split has more influence on the prices, potentially either making this feature useless or pricing very casual users out of the service.

Isn't Shanghai a Tier 1 city? IMO it's not very representative of the whole country.

It's also not like China is an overachieving outlier, but western nations actively having been sabotaged by its leadership at least since 1990 and MUCH MUCH more so since occupy wallstreet.

FFS Germany is blowing up its nuclear powerplants on a never before seen record breaking schedule so that a potential successor government cant reactivate them.

Exactly, this was the whole point of Trump calling climate change a hoax to benefit China, but somehow this got twisted by the media into not denying climate change being an anti-Trump position.

The base then started demanding this from their reps and Trump almost picked up on this himself. It took years to undo that damage and even now we're barely back at a pro-clean air, pro-solar and pro nuclear position...

it only applies if it is intended to and corruptly accepted as an influence on official decision-making.

The majority opinion argues that this is one of the primary differences between a bribe and a gift of gratitude.

A gift as a thank-you, post-hoc, where the prosecution cannot prove the gift was part of an effort to "corruptly" influence a prior decision, was always fine under any interpretation.

No, which is a large part of this whole argument. The interpretation the government used and was (indirectly) backed by the minority opinion, was, that the statute would not cover "innocuous or obviously benign" gratuities. But what counts as "innocuous or obviously benign" was never established. And this "innocuous or obviously benign" line is EXACTLY what distinguished between whether a gratitude was accepted with a corrupt state of mind.

And that's where we arrive back at the core of the problem.

For a bribe, the question of whether or not a corrupt state of mind existed can be judged at minimum by if the official act was corrupted. Usually this standard doesn't exist for gratitudes. These do not require a corrupt state of mind to be criminal, but their criminality derives solely from the heightened standard of responsibility of an official when performing official duties. Just like a heightened standard of responsibility when operating a motor vehicle or carrying.

If students said "if you give us a good grade, then we'll give you a Best Teacher Ever mug," that is functionally identical to a bribe but is now legal.

Not really a good example, because unless that's something like a theater performance there is basically no way forward from this, which could end with the teacher handing out good grades and receiving a mug from these students without this scenario becoming bribery.

And gratitudes do not become legal in general. It's just that the involvement of the federal government ends and states are now free to handle such cases however they think is appropriate.

They literally weakened the legislation.

IMO that's not the case, because if a legislation looses its intended focus, it gains a lot of arbitrariness in return. The more interpretations you consider valid, the more options you can choose from when applying it.

So, obviously, the legislation had to be returned to a single interpretation, the one Congress intended (or the one the court thinks is the best if you believe courts should hold legislative power).

Which leads directly to the second issue: Which was the interpretation Congress intended?

From dissent of disagreeing SCOTUS justice: "absurd and atextual reading of the statute is one only today’s Court could love."

The majority opinion analyses this issue with 6 different approaches, including a textual one, arriving at similar conclusions from each.

The dissenting opinion on the other hand argues, that all other approaches but the textual one should be rejected.

The dissenting opinion's textual interpretation strongly asserts, that Congress intended with "accepts or agrees to accept, anything of value from any person, intending to be influenced or rewarded" to address both bribes (intending to be influenced) and gratitudes (intending to be rewarded).

The majority opinion argues that if you were to divorce the concept of a reward from the prior intent during the influenced/rewarded actions in a statute that criminalizes accepting something of value rather than the intent itself (because how would that even be possible?), you end up with a situation in which being promised something of value, but only receiving it after the influenced actions have been completed, would no longer fulfill the requirements to be considered a bribe.

Basically the majority argues that if they are correct (666 being a bribery rather than a combined bribery + gratitudes statute), Congress still would have had to use language at least equivalent to the one at hand and therefore additional tests to deduce the intent of the 99th Congress can not be disregarded.

Not really, because that's the core issue had hand, but I might not have made my intention with the argument sufficiently clear.

The question the court looked at: Did Congress intend "receiving gifts as a bribe" and "receiving gifts as gratitude" to be two separate crimes for non-federal employees as it is the case for federal ones (In which case handling the issue would have been left up to the states)?

The majority opinion refused to consider the moral argument (although they snuck it in in their argument on a lack of fair notice), but IMO that's by far the most intuitive one, when you allow yourself to look at the problem from the legislative perspective. By looking at the extremes it becomes very clear that there are two very different problems:

Imagine a group of students doing much better than their peers on their final exam thanks to the efforts of their teacher and they gift him a "Best teacher ever" mug.

But now reverse the causality:

Imagine a teacher demanding to be gifted a "Best teacher ever" mug before putting extra effort into preparing his students for their final exam. The group that gifted him the mug does much better than their peers as a result.

IMO these should be two very different crimes, but there is also a valid argument that they are about equivalent, as pursued by the dissenting opinion.

But that's not something a court should legislate.

I never was contacted during the trial and only read about it almost 2 years later in the news.

Also, he's a man of strong faith, not that he knows he'll win in the end, but more like that it just doesn't have the same importance for him as it would have for us. I only had a short opportunity to ask him about it since then and basically he doesn't think there is just about any chance to win this, what he's most worried about is ruining the public image of his students (including his accusers) and since his order allowed him to rejoin and start over, in practice, he got all he wanted to ask for already.

Except for the victims of sexual abuse perpetrated by their clergy.

I honestly wonder how much of this is made up. Given the size of whole organization and it holding onto its weird priciples regarding the personal relationships of its members (introduced in the far past to limit the secular power of its clergy), there certainly will be SOME cases.

But in the one case a frater, who I knew, got convicted, he definitely didn't do it. He was accused by several independent former students and even some of the staff backed the students claims with first hand accounts of him having been alone with some of the students at the time. This supposedly happened on a trip with tight schedules, so all accounts and stated times were quite specific, even in the pre-smartphone era.

The only problem: He wasn't with the group at that time at all. I screwed up embarrassingly (and the staff, too, leaving a young student stranded in the middle of nowhere) and he thought he could slip out, come pick me up and nobody (but maybe me with him) would get in trouble over it. Turned out he forgot refueling, both of us stayed at a pastor's guest house and he called the group telling them, that they should go ahead without us and that we would drive to the event directly on our own. The supposed abuse was claimed to have happened at another short stay of the group where they spent a day visiting some mine before joining with us again.

Almost 3 decades later he got railroaded in court, me learning about it in the news.

Guess what, he wasn't South African or in the Oval Office, either.

The Catholic Church was funding a lot of research for a long time. E.g the Elon Musk of his time, Galileo, was famously sponsored by it and when asked to contrast his theories against the established view, sperged out so hard against the people tasked with reviewing his publications, they tossed him under the carriage.

Or at least never been on the receiving end of an oppressive regieme. Look at e.g. Germany. Plenty of ex-SED members are happy the relive the past.

Dont mistake malice for incompetence.

Friendly reminder he EXPLICITLY ran on protecting debt-limits in the German constitution, got elected on those promises and then changed course literally on day 1 after being elected.

I'm honestly surprised this issue in general didn't cause nearly every company to immediately ban all AI.

Why do these companies put so much effort into fighting right to repair to avoid IP leaks any halfway serious company could reverse engineer in a week, but on the other hand encourage their employees to vibe all company secrets into the cloud?

I'd be very interested in more info, but am going to doubt this for now. Usually just the intra-day deformations of the terrain between the towers through hydrological activity should far exceed what GNSS can achieve.

It is just VERY VERY hard to beat the predictability of orbits.

As another EU citizen I'm strongly against it. There is a reason one of the 5Ds of the Potsdam Conference was "Decentralization".

This is just way too close to the nationalist-wing ideology of the 2nd International. Combine that with the overall strong shift left during the last 30 to 40 years and the staggering unawareness of the ideologies of the Internationals (beyond buzzwords) and you've put yourself on a path for repeated history.

It also applied to other things existing at that time, like warships, canister shot in cannons or machine guns.

I don't even think it'd be this direct except maybe in the begining.

You already can monitor things like heart rate via motion amplification and track how and when they go where. And probably many other minor factors I can't think about atm.

Gather up enough of those and you should be able to establish a very strong sidechannel into when a restaurant might have new items, its food quality and how it changes over time.

Like how long does a person of age range a, who entered on his own with heart rate x and left with heart rate y, stay if he liked the food vs him not liking the food. Or something like that...

In the end a few public cameras or other type of sensor might be all that's needed. Even if we were to fix our portable wiretaps, I dont think a global surveillance society is avoidable.

We need to built a society that can allow for a modern equivalent of privacy and rule of law within that reality. We might not be able to get away with going 5mph over the limit or accidentally keeping a pen anymore, but neither do we want speeding in our neighborhoods or all our pens gone. So what's the solution here? Random sampling who gets punished? Law breaking quotas? Increasing fines based on severity of the crime and assets and income? Figuring out how to measure intent? Replacing all punishments for minor crimes with corporal ones? idk

Why shouldn't AI be able to sufficiently model all of this in the not far future? Why shouldn't have it have sufficient access to new data and sensors to be able to collect information on its own, or at least the system that feeds it?

Not from a moral perspective of course, but the technical possibility. And the overton window has shifted already so far, the moral aspect might align soon, too.

IMO there is an entirely different problem, that's not going to go away just about ever, but could be solved right now easily. And whatever AI company does so first instantly wipes out all competition:

Accept full responsibility and liability for any damages caused by their model making wrong decisions and either not meeting a minimum quality standard or the agreed upon quality.

You know, just like the human it'd replace.

I guess so, but:

https://youtu.be/qqUgl6pFx8Q?si=x3CpsW9Aane7GHHV&t=1875

Wikipedia seems to do just fine without.

Because donations are a system that works very much in their favor and not at all in favor of other types of projects. Look at the OpenSSL Software Foundation having received less than $2k in yearly donations during the leadup to heartbleed.

Commercializing a product is a whole other field, and it's not reasonable to expect everyone to be good at that, and not reasonable to expect developers to all take on a second job of commercializing their hobby projects.

I very much want to disagree with you, but I do not know how. Achieving some commercial success if you do look for it where others with your skill set are successful is not too difficult (see the trades), but the whole point of such projects is the exact opposite: Doing things differently and pushing accepted boundaries to where you think they should be.

On the other hand I think that this is acceptable. As I wrote in another comment, the obligations in these projects mostly arise from what the developers wants to commit themselves to (or, sadly, do so mistakenly). It is very reasonable to e.g. not value the long term success of your project highly.

You might want to just share an idea, maybe someone else will carry on your project or maybe if in 5 years someone shows a picture of you proudly presenting your project, you're like "AI has gotten really impressive, if I didn't know better, I don't think I could tell that this is a fake". And if you're anything like me, strong commitments to internet strangers might be life-threatening. 2 out of 3 times a promise I made got upvoted, I got hit by a car within less than 48 hours of making it and not once otherwise. An up-arrow got just one pointy end, a GitHub star 5. I'm not taking chances.

I disagree that builders “owe” anyone anything

I disagree, but I think "owe" carries too much of a negative connotation. Through your project you enter both a relationship with yourself, having taken on a commitment to achieve what got you interested in starting your project in the first place, and the community (who also could be nobody but yourself) you want to benefit from your project, who want to rely on your project to some degree.

These relationships lead to obligations, few, if any, of them being legal or moral ones. Instead they are obligations put onto you by your own interests. You do not observe them because e.g. your project's community demands them (who, I'd like to point out again at this specific point, may still be nobody but yourself!), but because they are important to you. What is important to you can and will change, of course.

I strongly disagree with goal of as much profit “as possible”.

TBH, I consider the "within the rules they think should be followed" part essential to the statement.

obligation for maximal profits - something that I personally hold responsible for all the mass enshittification going on these days.

I'm not sure, but I don't think that's the case, sad enough, IMO the reason is to be found a bit to the opposite:

As a group, the people we're overall aligned with in our values (on this issue), having found fulfilling success in goals way less influential than money.

I'm in no way an expert, but IMO there is a major misconception in the free-ish software community that profit should be at most secondary to offering a fair and as good as sustainably possible product.

I strongly disagree with this. IMO developers of free-ish as in freedom products OWE it, not only to themselves, but their community to be as profitable as possible within the rules they think that should be followed (and those that are mandatory ofc).

Profit is not only by far the strongest motivating factor for others to adopt your set of rules, but also a guarantee to your community that the product will still be around in a few years and not turn into a rug pull because its developer is burned out after working 80 hour weeks for months or even years for less than minimum wage. It is also something you can trade for your values, e.g. offering great working conditions to your employees or funding projects or lobbying for laws you think will benefit society.

What is the point of telemetry if your IDE launching in under 10s is considered the pinnacle of optimization?

That's like 100B+ instructions on a single core of your average superscalar CPU.

I can't wait for maps loading times being measured in percentage of trip time.

IMO too many people come to the conclusion that Qualcomm will in some way screw up the Arduino takeover at the expense of the community.

And I think these people are right, but that is not necessary a bad thing.

There is just about no reason a giant like Qualcomm would take over something like Arduino for any other purpose but to acquire resources (talent, customers, community, processes, documentation, ...) they can use to teach themselves how to become more open, to what degree they even want to and to have a trusted platform they can take their initial steps in and will get feedback from.

And the reality is, that someone with little experience will screw up badly, several times. I mean, look at the current state of the major silicon IP holders, the only reason they dont ship brain-chips with their NDAs that explode the moment you mention the wrong part number infornt of a competitor is because the NDAs for the documentation on how to install the brain-chips would get them stuck in recursion hell.

And just as little experience Qualcomm has at making open source a successful business strategy, Arduino has just as little experience at being a corporate Godzilla trying to carefully pet the egg they just adopted. And let's be real: Open source projects OWE it to their community to be financially successful, because it's that financial success that guarantees that the project CAN STAY open and wont force its core maintainers into choosing between their commitment to their community and a fulfilling lifestyle, although for someone like Qualcomm this success can probably be something else but financial in nature (acquiring talent, their products becoming a preferred choice, schools teaching students using Qualcomm products, whatever).

Both Arduino and Qualcomm will end up outside of their domain and it'd be surprising if this would not result in major mistakes being made.

.

Qualcomm has to evaluate whether their new talent at Arduino is doing a good job and are suddenly looking at a giant dumpster fire, wondering what could have possibly caused this since their lawyers aren't even half-done sticking on the "by Qualcomm" labels yet.

Right now, instead of trying to pressure Qualcomm into making commitments they do not understand, the community should try to adopt the role of a stakeholder, who prioritizes a long and healthy relationship with a currently struggling contractor over getting the desired product at a reasonable timeline.

The community needs to make a cold day in hell happen, calm down, get together and formalize what they think they liked about Arduino up until now, the fundamental requirements that need to be retained or even developed and what would be nice to have.