almatabata

So I'm assuming Europe's goal is not to compete or break American moat but to force them to be polite and to preserve national sovereignty on important national security aspects.

When push comes to shove the US company will always prioritize US interest. If you want to stay under the US umbrella by all means. But honestly it looks very short sighted to me.

After seeing this news https://observer.co.uk/news/columnists/article/the-networker..., how can you have any faith that they will play nice?

You have only one option. Grow alternatives. Fund your own companies. China managed to fund the local market without picking winners. If European countries really care, they need to do the same for tech.

If they don't they will forever stay under the influence of another big brother. It is US today, but it could be China tomorrow.

There's a strange DEI phobia some folks have picked up

The shitty half-assed way companies implemented it, helped make it really unpopular.

I did not say to trust it. I do not need to trust it.

If I run my own tests on my own codebase I will definitely use some objective time measurement method and a subjective one. I really want to know if there is a big difference.

I really wonder if its just the individuals bias showing. If you are pro-AI you might overestimate one, and if you are against it you might under-estimate it.

Interestingly the developers predict that AI will make them faster, and continue to believe that it did make them faster, even after completing the task slower than they otherwise would!

In this case clearly anecdotes are not enough. If that quote from the article is accurate, it shows that you cannot trust the developers time perception.

I agree, its only one study and we should not take it as the final answer. It definitely justifies doing a few follow up evaluations to see if this

Aren't most of those lawyers the select few that can afford to go into politics?

But radar and ultrasound did not cost a lot and he got rid of those too, suggesting it was more than cost that made him go vision only.

They did get rid of the radar at a moment when there was a shortage of parts. They had the choice, ship now without the part, or wait and ship less cars.

Maybe that was always the plan, and the shortage only accelerated the decision.

It is a gift to foreign security agencies as well: https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/suspected-chi...

Back when they started, lidar cost a lot of money. They could not have equipped all cars with it.

The issue came when he promised every car would become a robotaxi. This means he either has to retrofit them all with lidar, or solve it with the current sensor set. It might be ego as well, but adding lidar will also expose them to class action suits.

The promise that contributed to the soaring valuation, now looks like a curse that stops him from changing anything. It feels a bit poetic.

thanks for clarifying.

I know, but the article mentions that a separate ruling will be made about that pirating.

quote: “We will have a trial on the pirated copies used to create Anthropic’s central library and the resulting damages,” Judge Alsup wrote in the decision. “That Anthropic later bought a copy of a book it earlier stole off the internet will not absolve it of liability for theft but it may affect the extent of statutory damages.”

This tells me Anthropic acquired these books legally afterwards. I was asking if during that purchase, the seller could add a no training close to the sales contract.

If a publisher adds a "no AI training" clause to their contracts, does this ruling render it invalid?

Here are a few examples of people getting unreasonably dragged:

Low wage worker fired over a misinterpretation of a snapchat: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/ottawa-social-media-po...

9 year old getting called racist by a newspaper: https://apnews.com/article/defamation-deadspin-nfl-football-...

Man fired because he was cracking his knuckles: https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/502975-cal...

Another alleged white power symbol accusation: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-news/jeopardy-slamme...

They can definitely hire 2-5 people to do something, and at least try to crack down.

Just because you cannot "solve" an issue, does not mean you should do nothing. By that logic valve should not implement VAC, because after all, cheaters will always find a way.

They play the anti-cheat game of cat and mouse, because if they do not, users will stop playing. No one wants to play with cheaters unless they are cheating.

They could definitely invest some resources into this. But they have no monetarily incentive thus they do nothing. I fully expect legal action or fear of it, will eventually make them do something.

I am not even sure this administration is cutting it with the goal of causing populations to rebel against corrupt politicians.

I think history has shown you just end up starving the powerless (folks in power don't care) and change doesn't necessarily happen.

I know. I was not specifically arguing that it was definitely going to happen in all or even any current scenario. I just wanted to make the case that giving aid to countries with corrupt governments can definitely keep them in power longer.

I am not making the case, that we should sacrifice starving people, in the hopes of triggering a revolution. We just should stay cognizant of the fact, that foreign aid can influence internal political balances between factions. After analysis it might be, that we have to accept helping a dictator by stabilizing his country, if it saves more lives.

I remember reading the argument in the "dictators handbook" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dictator%27s_Handbook), that foreign aid helps corrupt regimes.

"When aid funds are used to substitute for government spending, then few, maybe even no one, has actually been helped unless the government uses the freed-up money for other projects of benefit to the general population. Of course, they don’t. They use the money to shore up their political position and the loyalty of their essential backers."

So there is definitely an argument to be made, that if you are not careful with how you dispense foreign aid, you will definitely empower corrupt politicians.

The book discusses examples where foreign aid was used more effectively.

And with skin sales. Remember that Valve charges a Tax on every item sale. Every time you sell an Item like a skin on the steam market, valve takes a cut. If they crackdown on the gambling it will impact their bottom line.

As you say, Valve does not directly promote gambling products. They are not like EA with their predatory Fifa super team.

Still a lot of people, including journalists, find that they could do more to protect against underage gambling.

There must be a publisher out there that forbids you from training an AI on the copy you buy from them by now.

Can't it communicate the opposite as well? You could read it as, I take this seriously so I will invest money into looking my best?

That is assuming everyone has a working survival instinct. Religious fanatics notoriously do not have this instinct. You just need one country with a religious fanatic at its head, who thinks that it is better we all go to heaven than to let evil win, and boom.

Now you can you argue the current US president is a fanatic if you want. But I do not see how adding more bombs to more countries reduces the odds of nuclear warfare in the future.

The current equilibrium has worked well enough. I do not see why we need to hand over nuclear weapons to countries currently embroiled in bloody civil wars.

the UUIDs could also be service specific, so they cannot be cross referenced across different sites in case of leaks.

Assuming services play nice. What if they start sharing UUIDs amongst each other, for example for advertising purposes?

Worse what is stopping companies from creating both service and verifier? Nothing, as Amazon already has both. I do not trust them not to abuse this.

And even if in theory all companies do the respect my privacy. I am one government away, from seeing a law passed, that makes it mandatory to report all UUIDs to the government. The potential for tracking is off the charts.

Right now it takes forever to trace everything. You can realistically only do it for a select targets. If you implement this UUID system, suddenly it becomes much easier to trace everyone's actions.

The scale is also completely different. In terms of storage Wikipedia is not that big. Around 10TB for the English version. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Size_of_Wikipedia). That is relatively small potatoes. Hosting costs in 2022-2023 were around 3 million (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2...).

They say no ads (https://www.thekeyword.co/news/bluesky-says-it-has-no-plans-...). Seems like they will pivot to subscriptions (https://www.theverge.com/2024/10/24/24278666/bluesky-working...). I remember reading somewhere they also wanted to add payments from user to user, so they could take a cut from that. If that is enough to cover their expenses is left to be seen.

WHICH BY THE WAY IS NOT SOMETHING YOU WILL DO A LOT IN BIG TECH BECAUSE WE HAVE CODING ASSISTANTS NOW FFS!

Even if we take that point as fact. The whole point of the exercise, is to check if you can write it yourself unassisted. If you cannot do it yourself, how can I trust you to judge what the assistant is writing? The assistant is only as good as the supervisor at this point.

They do not specify the use-case, but if you are charitable, its probably the fallback mode if the self-driving stack cannot handle the situation. Waymo has the same thing as well, so not exactly unexpected.

Imagine what happens when the company gets hacked and they start selling your voice online?

Sophisticated Phishing attacks, blackmail, destroying someones public image

Honestly I would have thought that 5 years ago. But given the latest news on what they are doing, and how they treat security, I honestly have lost all faith that they can handle that data with care.

Laundry list of breaches: https://firewalltimes.com/microsoft-data-breach-timeline/

Profit over customer: https://www.propublica.org/article/microsoft-solarwinds-gold...

When reading the article I do get the impression they try to downplay the potential risks.

quote 1: “These puberty-pausing medications are widely used in many different populations and safely so,” McNamara says.

quote 2: “From an ethical and a legal perspective, this is a benign medication,” Giordano says. She is puzzled by the extra scrutiny these treatments receive, considering their benefits and limited risks. “There are no sound clinical, ethical or legal reasons for denying them to those in need,” she says.

quote 3: Like any medication, GnRHas carry the potential for adverse effects.

Now if you read one of the studies they link (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7497424/).

quote: "Arguments against the use of GnRHa that have been raised include possible long-term adverse effects on health, psychological, and sexual functioning (Laidlaw, Cretella, & Donovan, 2019; Richards, Maxwell, & McCune, 2019; Vrouenraets et al., 2015)."

I really feel like they overstate the strength of their positions with the articles they cite. All of them show clear limitations of the results which clearly show we need more data.

Your assumption is that there exists an "apolitical truth" that science should aspire to. There isn't.

You can definitely try present different theories on a given topic, citing different papers that defend different viewpoints. You can have a bias for one interpretation, I will not fault you for that. But if you pretend like you favorite interpretation is the settled science and anyone that disagrees is an idiot, then I think you failed at your job as a science publication.

Also, the article specifically mentions Chrome, NOT Chromium (which again, is open), so what incentive would Google have to maintaining the project without their own version of it? Would they be bared from starting a new one?

I wonder similarly if they are only selling the brand and the existing installation base. I do not see what is stopping them from just creating a chrome clone called Manganese and continuing.

It would be an interesting experiment though to see if the google version will regain the same market share or if chrome will maintain its current market share under the new stewardship.

without resorting to the usual low-effort solutions, such as using some sort of algorithm that bans automatically based on keywords or number of reports.

Or you prioritize reports from accounts with a proven track record. If I consistently report posts that clearly violate the rules why shouldn't my report count more than an account that just got created?

If you consistently report nonsense then you should accumulate negative karma until at some point you can safely ignore whatever they report in the future.