avidiax

It is crazy people think apple isnt on the side of privacy.

It also ensured pressure from governments and plaintiffs, including CSAM victims, who preferred Apple’s more interventionist approaches, which Apple had voluntarily demonstrated it was willing to do.

I feel that Apple open pandora's box with the client-side scanning. It proved that it was technically feasible, and was "privacy preserving". I use scare quotes there because I don't think that political or religious dissidents would find that the same or similar technology used to discover and persecute them is "privacy preserving". And that's really the problem with Apple here. They provided a model for scanning for any kind of message or material while purportedly maintaining privacy.

I was able to see The Odyssey yesterday in 70mm, and it had a preview of Dune 3.

I wasn't planning to see Dune 3, but that preview made me want to see it.

Can we monitor seat availability on Dune 3 70mm as well? Maybe a beta? I think right now it's just the 4 days of early release tickets, all 100% sold out of course.

One of the hopes I have for AI is that products like this become almost unsellable.

Gemini strongly disrecommends buying this product[1], but it's not clear if the opinion is based on Dr. Gough's review in-part.

This, of course, leads to another arms race where listings like this will be "AI optimized". They may have prompt injections, or simply specifically claim that issues like backfeeding are resolved when they are not.

And it also makes the AI companies an arbiter of what products are marketable.

[1] https://share.gemini.google/q2ujmGU7UgeS

I'm not going to claim that elevator malpractice isn't possible, but no elevator is designed with a single point of failure for any safety critical system, so I don't think it's easy or likely to make a mistake that would cause a safety issue.

This post was pretty technical. Let's explain a couple of terms:

ML-KEM -- Module-Lattice-Based Key-Encapsulation Mechanism

ML-DSA -- Module-Lattice-Based Digital Signature Algorithm

solo PQ -- Using post-quantum crypto on its own

ECC+PQ -- Using post-quantum crypto as a layer on top of traditional elliptical curve cryptography (ECC)

So what's at stake here, is that the PQ crypto is not proven yet, and had recent implementation vulnerabilities (Kyberslash 1 & 2).

In the NSA's defense, combining cryptosystems also creates attack surfaces, timing problems, additional complexity, etc. Perhaps they know something we don't. They have sometimes acted to strengthen public cryptography, as with the DES S-boxes and differential cryptanalysis. Of course, they also weakened the key-space...

Put them in the vegetable bin in the fridge, too. Should make them last much longer.

AI is both terrifying and miraculous.

Good to have stories like this where it enables something that might be impossible or impractical otherwise.

I do think the author has a good understanding of software requirements, which is hopefully something the AI will take over eventually.

This article really buried the most interesting part: the shaping of public opinion by the home office in the UK following acts of terrorism.

The French Revolution is no longer possible. The surveillance state plus wealth mobility means the wealthy will be in New Zealand before anyone erects a guillotine, and the people that would foment a revolution are heavily surveilled and infiltrated.

Rural power was always expensive, but now due to wildfire risk, it needs to be ruinously expensive. It's not for the benefit of the cities, and driven by corporate risk management.

Yes. That is a central problem with power distribution in California.

The cities are paying exorbitant prices for electricity to pay for safer infrastructure for rural customers (undergrounding).

Some cities have divested from PG&E and enjoy much lower electricity prices as a result.

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/newsletters/2026-05-21/spa...

https://archive.is/yFZjd

----

The complaint here isn't from SpaceX investors. It's from retail investors that are being forced to buy SpaceX stock on an accelerated timeline as part of the ETFs they likely purchased so that they would not be overly exposed to volatile single stock picks. The article isn't explicit on this point, instead vaguely gesturing to the series of mega IPOs coming and pointing out that retail clients need to plan for this.

There is a game being played here where the various indexes (NASDAQ, NYSE, etc.) are trying to sweeten the deal to attract big entries like SpaceX (and later OpenAI, Anthropic). The sugar they are giving is an accelerated timeline and inflated spot in the index (3x float rule). That sugar is paid for by retail investors, who may get squeezed when their index funds pay a high price for a small float of public shares, all on predictable days.

Before you say that retail investors should simply buy SpaceX themselves prior to the 15-day index inclusion, realize that retail investors also don't have access to shares at the IPO offer price. That benefit is reserved for large investors, private equity, etc. While it is possible that some retail investors will take this gamble and win, many will be taking a large risk.

So a passion tax seems like something that should exist and not really be decried.

To put it the other way, work that is distasteful in some way, should also pay more, but this is missing the point.

I think the point of the unionization is that the monopsony of a small number of AAA game studios gives them excessive market power to reduce compensation and especially to reduce working conditions.

A union can acquiesce to the passion tax and say that top developers at a AAA should make $150k/year (a bit low), while simultaneously saying that that developer should be able to see their children on nights and weekends. The project management that leads to "perma-crunch" is something that ought to be resolved on the employer's side, not by the employees.

Also product liability. If you give a domestic hair dryer a 12 ft cord, someone will use it in the shower.

If you give an insta-pot a 6 ft cord, someone will drape it off the counter and a child will pull it.

UL standards actually limit cable length for many appliances.

https://www.intertek.com/standards-updates/ul-1026-electrica...

What is a "fair" outcome?

Is it easier to hold back talented students with a low bar or push untalented ones to a higher bar?

It's not just special relativity that's out of reach. It's generally difficult for an LLM to do anything novel, i.e. produce a new hypothesis from scientific data that fits no existing hypothesis, or create an algorithm with a new lower bound on runtime, or debug a proprietary system that makes unusual design assumptions.

Present LLMs are quite good at interpolating, in fact, too good.

That's the source of hallucinations. A path can be found between A and B, even if A is the 12th century Chinese royal court and B is the Easter bunny.

Interpolation and rote knowledge are still very useful. Most cognitive tasks are like this.

The thing that LLMs are not presently good at is extrapolation. You can train an LLM on pre-1904 literature, but you won't get special relativity from it, at least not without a human to prompt it in just the right way.

You can have an LLM provide a "novel math proof", but you are necessarily discarding 100 or 1,000 "novel math mistakes". The process is more like a guided walk (like the A* algorithm), with human supervision and intervention, not an autonomous math genius.

"They" are, of course, working on it. But the present implementation has some severe structural limitations (such as an inability for new or discovered information to affect model weights) that make LLMs as a human replacement incomplete.

AI for engineering productivity seems to be widely misunderstood to be a magic button that produces the same result, but faster and more cheaply. And based on that reasoning, you should want to force employees to tokenmax, because, why wouldn't you want to get more results but faster and cheaper?

A more nuanced view would be something like:

* AI lets you achieve your roadmap somewhat faster, but:

  * You incur tech debt that's similar to if you hired a dev temporarily for the features. You don't necessarily have someone on the team that understands the new code.

  * Similarly, you aren't upskilling your junior team members. So you aren't getting skill/wage arbitrage as much as before.

  * You will complicate the product. P2 features are P2 for a reason, but AI can cause them to be included and complicate the product for lower marginal gain.

Until SCOTUS rules that parallel construction is a constitutional violation, the FBI is free to track everyone and build cases from illegal data.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction

The US could have those benefits for free.

Single payer would be drastically cheaper than the current system.

The other benefits are just policies that slightly reduce GDP per capita based on a first order analysis.

We are able to afford so many other subsidies, so unclear why housing would be different.

That paper is looking at the top 1%. Buy, borrow, die is the realm of the top 0.1 % or 0.01%.

Are you saying that billionaires are actually realizing capital gains to afford yachts, private jets, and mansions?

Though I am pro-LVT, I don't think this will help in the current situation.

The owner, the bank, and the city all wish to maintain the illusion that a $10M building from 2010 is still worth at least $10M today, even vacant. No party wishes to realize the loss in value. Occasionally, the city may try to punish vacancy with a tax, which is still about additional revenue and not about realizing diminished value.

Get custom fitted ones at an audiologist.

They are very comfortable, at least in the upward facing ear, for me. Foamies are only tolerable a couple of nights for me.

Yes. Wearing regular earplugs will change the shape of your ear, and many people can't tolerate it every night.

You can't have a modality that leaves someone out for a mass social or business product.

It's the vegetarians that constrain a shared restaurant choice.

My rule is more about expansion ratio and effort.

I will generate an LLM output that organizes scattered information and thoughts, resulting in 1.25x the text. I then read and edit it, generate executive summaries, and send it.

It saves effort for me in organizing, formatting and summarizing, and the LLM is producing more structure than content.

More seriously, why wouldn't older, longer-lived people be more likely to address long-term problems like climate change?

Why would people with a short-term future be likely to address long-term problems?

The court is the regulator of last resort. A company that gets taken to court would likely have been sanctioned by the government regulators of another country.

Also, court is unavailable in many cases now. Binding arbitration is very common now, but this would be illegal in many other places.

Why would private equity want more competent doctors?

Incompetent ones order unnecessary tests and exhaust treatment possibilities, which drives up cost billed to insurance.

Only the insurance industry and perhaps licensing bodies can pressure to keep the quality floor high, at least in terms of accurate diagnosis and prevention of overtreatment.

Not exactly, the article says that the effects aren't linked to caffeine, not that decaf has been shown to have the positive effects or still contain the necessary chemicals.