HN user
This is frustratingly close to amazing. Obviously you went through all the trouble of pulling all the data from all the trains and displaying them in 3d, but then lock our view on to just one train or one station while all that interesting information zips around in the periphery. The view port needs to be more free form...less on rails.
As a non-attorney that has also used PACER, I don't think of it in quite these terms. Sure maybe there's some level of public subsidy by making it free, but like you say, relative to the legal profession that subsidy per lawyer is at the noise floor. On the other hand, the value of making it free to people outside the legal profession is well worth the degree to which we'd be subsidizing the people in it.
For example, journalists. There's enormous investigative journalism value in the documents that have been filed in court. People say all sorts of shit in affidavits which turns out to be relevant outside the context they intended it for. PACER should be free, if nothing else than for the public interest value of its content (outside as well as inside the court).
For the most part it didn't, but to the extent it did, the answer is in the later Mollen Commission Report.
I'll give you a read.
If you haven't read it already, I strongly recommend the Knapp Commission Report. Its about police corruption in New York City in 1972, but its lessons on systemic and institutionalized corruption are highly transferable to other contexts.
Probably the most common naive mistake I see is people thinking their subfield is special and they are the first to really notice / understand fraud within it. I've certainly seen people in the "sleuth community" (scientific fraud whistle blowers) reinvent the wheel a few times.
All fraud is basically the same. Financial, scientific, police corruption...it almost doesn't matter. I'm not even the first to say this. A really good summary can be found in Ashforth 2003 ("The Normalization of Corruption in Organizations").
So, with the caveat that I haven't read your work yet and maybe you already know, I'd say look at past corruption far outside your area of interest / expertise. There's a lot you can learn there. Police corruption reports are usually great because of how accessible they are in several senses (more numerous, usually simple to understand), but I have no police related agenda to push here and it really doesn't matter where you decide to look. Just pick any Commission and read their findings.
In the opening words of the Knapp Commission "We found corruption to be widespread".
Its a real shame we don't have any transcripts or other court records from that hearing...for obvious reasons.
Gather round kids and grab your muskets. The Qui Tam Clan ain't nuthin to fuk wit.
wheres the part that had anything to do with subway stations?
Hold up. you can't just have the train take the parenthesis off screen and hand wave away what happens to those cars. What happens when your forced to keep the garbage of a computation because you can't delete anything?
Wow, there were actually principles behind the rules and they bothered to reason about them. That's way different than my experience with school teachers.
Jokes on you, you learned to program.
I learned programming on that calculator. I learned programming because of that calculator. I owe so much to that calculator.
More generally, the best bet to solving a problem more efficiently is always to use more information about the specific problem you want to solve
It is both obvious and profound, the more information you already have, the more information you already have.
Its a honeypotpot
You could also do your weak equality test by taking the sum 1+2+3+4+5, or the product 12345, or any other commutative binary operator.
I'll throw my hat in the ring of other "xor" tricks.
So we all know addition swap. One generalization that comes to mind is doing some other in-place transform on the two input variables. Lets keep it simple and suppose that its a linear transform. Thus the problem is to apply some matrix [[a,b],[c,d]] to two input variables [x,y] using entirely in-place operations.
We can do this by realizing that our basic operands can be expressed as matrices. x += ky is the same as the matrix [1, k] [0, 1]
likewise y += kx is equiv to the lower triangular matrix [1, 0] [k, 1]
and lastly, the = operator is equiv to a matrix with an element on the diag. x = k [k ,0] [0, 1]
y *= k [1, 0] [0, k]
From this point on it becomes a challenge of if you can construct any desired matrix into some combination of these available ones (spoiler, yes you can).
The next generalization one could contemplates is doing operations in place on more than 2 variables. Well, if one has already solved arbitrary 2x2 matrix operations, then that can be rigged to implement larger matrices one submatrix at a time.
The final generalization that comes to mind is what can we do with non-arithmetic operators? We've already seen an example of this with using xor-swap rather than addition-swap. But is there anything out there vaguely like xor-2x2-matrix-multiply?
I legit don't know. I have some thought, but I won't meander out loud if its not going to lead anywhere.
Well rather than our respective anecdotes, I cite page 252-253 of the Knapp Commission Report on Police Corruption in New York (1972).
It is clear that the risks of severe punishment for corrupt behavior are slight. A dishonest policeman knows that, even if he is caught and convicted, he will probably receive a court reprimand or, at most, a fairly short jail sentence. Considering the vast sums to be made in some plainclothes squads or in narcotics enforcement, the gains from corruption seem far to outweigh the risks. Both William Phillips and Edward Droge said that they assessed the risk of meaningful punishment and determined that they had little to fear.
I've read enough reports of this nature and experienced enough regulators to be really convinced that where you see apparent stupidity you are also likely to see a table like the one on page 250 showing virtually no prosecutions prior to the Commission.
Neither Drodge nor Phillips were wrong in their calculation. I hate to say, your estimate of a 10% chance of getting caught was way too optimistic. Going by the data, it was much much lower than that.
(My axe to grind is not with the police in particular, reports on police corruption just happen to be the most available and easily understandable).
Something I've learned is that in a certain social strata when people do audaciously stupid, its rarely because they lack the common sense to have covered their tracks. Its because they've learned they don't have to. No one is working hard to try and catch them, and even if by some miracle someone does (and people believe them), no government or regulatory body is really interested in punishing them anyway.
This broadly goes for non-criminal acts too. Sometimes powerful people do seemingly dumb things because they are only dumb in the context of the incentive structures if one of us tried to do it. In their context, it would be stupid not to egregiously take advantage.
Same, but it was a TI-84, and the game was tic-tac-toe with a perfect "ai" that would let you enter "number of players: 0" [1]
Dare I say, the Revolution will not be Televised.
Well then technically the US wasn't processing their visa's back then either.
Exactly. The spice lets the quant guild see into the future. This ability is so valuable it has earned them the patronage of House Goldman and House Blackrock.
Dune also predicted it. The spice must flow.
I have the same question about minor legislative amendments a certain agency keeps requesting in relation to its own statutory instrument. Obviously they are going to be passed without much scrutiny, they all seem small and the agency is pretty trustworthy.
(this is an unsolved problem that exists in many domains from long before AI)
Its impressive how well Bezos has convinced everyone to stop trusting WaPo rather than WaPo convincing everyone to trust Bezos. A paper owned by a wealthy financial interest was hardly unique or novel at the time he took them over, and no one would have been more concerned about it than they already were, and all he had to do was not be overt in his influence and bias of it, but he couldn't refrain.
The fact that this happened and that you have evidence of it make it enormously interesting even if the actual substance of the prompts and the response are mundane as hell. Please post.
Notorious hacker floor2 openly published comments online about misusing judicial process and the difficulty of covering his tracks.
The "one point" in "one point perspective" isn't drawn at all, rather it is the point where all lines going into the page perpendicular to the viewing plane eventually converge to. Eg if you were to stand on a set of straight train tracks (don't do this) you would see both rails (and any roads or whatever else is parallel to them) converge to a point somewhere on the horizon line. The artists call it the "vanishing point", the mathematicians call it "the point at infinity".
Indeed with the point at infinity you can simplify geometry by dispensing with Euclid's 5th postulate. There are no parallel lines, any two lines intersect at a single point just the same way as any two points are intersected by a single line, and the intersection points of the lines we call "parallel" simply happen to be "at infinity" (outside the set of ordinary finite coordinates).
The vanishing point in a perspective drawing is a point with a value that is literally beyond the finite coordinates of any object. And you don't need to be looking at a drawing to see it.
In a certain regard its an accounting trick. Saying parallel lines meet at infinity is literally like saying "lets schedule this meeting for never", except the mathematicians added an actual box to the calendar for a date called "never" as an accounting hack, but the hack works so well you really have to wonder if it might actually be a real date or if its just an incredibly useful fiction.
Aren't all numbers just incredibly useful fictions?
Why is a date called never / a point at infinity any different?
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/20/7b/ae/207bae64d2488373fd4a...
I see infinity all the time. Go look at a one point perspective drawing.
People assign responsibility to "agents" in contracts to wash their hands of thins in various ways all the time, and it usually works.
Wait is this still about AI?