braiamp

The real moat aren't the models, but the tooling around the models that allow them to perform specific tasks/goals. That's what really sets apart frontier vs open. Open only has the model itself, closed have the tooling to enhance the model.

The purpose of a college degree is NOT a job

Superior education is the ladder towards self-sufficiency because that's what the labor market does, it requires you to hold a degree. Now, you may be right that the degree by itself doesn't guarantee it but you are ignoring that the students don't have any choice to do so. So your solution actually punishes the students rather than fix the labor market inflated requirement values. Fix the labor market and suddenly education doesn't have to be financed to allow youngsters be able to look after themselves.

Despite what everyone said, I'm excited specifically for DKIM2. As someone that had managed a mailing list, that one is probably the hardest thing to juggle around and DKIM2 layering seems to fix that issue neatly. I hope postfix has a guide proto.

If anything, this moves it towards anyone having more access to everything. For example, reject isn't going to be treated anymore as a bounce. Now, provider policies still can and would be BS, but the standard doesn't tell them to do it certain way.

Eh, I read the article, and at most you only have to wait for your MTA to update to add the required headers and update your DNS records and you are golden. It still uses the same key you generated as far I'm aware.

I'm baffled that we still are thinking that we want thin phones. We have a gigantic camera bump that would be removed if the phone was thicker. Who wants a razor in their pocket, like really?

No, but pointing out the irony of the situation is still helpful to anyone reading it.

Only the regulation that doesn't evolve with the time or written so that it stays within the confines of a context that doesn't exists. Certain big country constitution is a prime example of that.

This is a weird framing and only furthers that argument. No, if you give money for something, that something is yours. It will violating a bunch of fundamental contract law understanding if the ownership status of what you buy is ever questioned.

Lets use a book, since it illustrate how ridiculous such assertions are. Ask yourself this question: why do you buy a book? For the paper, for the ink or for the information that it contains? Obviously the valuable thing for anyone is the information, the message, the communication of the author with you. Nobody really cares how the information reaches you, but that it reaches you. It is what motivates your purchase. When people buy digital content, they aren't buying the digital zeros and ones, they are buying the content.

And yet the format you supposedly don't care about is exactly what determines whether you keep any rights afterward. Take the same text in a printed book versus an ebook. Same author, same copyrighted content, same money changing hands. Buy the printed copy and you can resell it, lend it, leave it to your kids, no permission asked, because first sale doctrine protects whoever owns a copy. Buy the ebook and the platform's license language quietly reclassifies you as a non-owner, so none of that applies. The format from which the content is transmitted and distributed is irrelevant to why you bought it, but apparently decisive for what you're legally allowed to do with it once you have. The individual would never have started the purchase process if it didn't expect to own a copy of said content.

This is where every "but it's digital, so it is different" fails to address, and I believe deliberately and maliciously, it implies that value only resides in the material plane without considering the abstract.

Regulations create monopolies. Even when regulations are aimed at curbing the control of giants, smaller players usually can't afford them and lose market share. This is actually taught as a competitive advantage strategy in business school. Corporations lobby the government to implement laws that seem to hurt them but in actuality create an uneven playing field where marketshare becomes available due to the higher implementation cost.

The only way to guarantee a monopoly is to have a total lack of regulation. It's known that every "free" market will tend towards monopoly due the 1% law. Regulations are the only way to actually guarantee free markets because perfect free markets only exists in abstract, not in reality. Sometimes, a free market is the wrong solution and you need a regulated monopoly instead and with identity that's the best solution. Why? Because identity is unique to the individual. A individual must (in theory) only have one identity and with very extreme and usually well documented exceptions, such identity doesn't change. The state is the one that must provide a good way for identity and if smaller countries doesn't have the resources, then big countries should provide for all. Also, it removes incompatibility inter-countries while keeping private interests out.

The state should have the sole monopoly on attesting to anyone identity. Because they are the only ones that are not affected by market conditions. This is how countries that have advanced in this topic actually work. If individual states can't reach a common solution, then the collective must do so. The collective failed here because it recommended a private solution rather than mandated a european one. Private sector must not dictate what or how identity is attested, because the private sector has it's profit pursuing agenda, state must evaluate solutions but it's up to the states to run them and implement them.

Market solutions are good for several things, this isn't one of them.

The timing isn't lost on you, it's on the wrong galaxy. This is the regular requests for comments that the commission does on digital markets, the ISP's have been saying this since a while ago

In a new filing to the Commission’s ongoing assessment of the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive, EuroISPA once again sounds the alarm, pointing out that the piracy blocking climate in some countries is getting more extreme. EuroISPA starts by explicitly referencing the Commission’s own conclusions. Its evaluation of the 2023 Recommendation on combating piracy of live events concluded that the measures had “limited positive effects” and did not lead to a substantial reduction in piracy.

They are literally saying the commission that the law is being applied in a lopsided way and to start doing the counter-balance of that.

I mean, for the second (third?) option specifically. You will notice that they will be more open to go outside of the standard of care if you have a working theory.

Ok, there's a lot to unpack here and you really had the deck stacked against you. First, lets go from the top, once a test says X, disproving that X is really hard. And that's not unique to the medical profession, it's inherent to all humans and we suck at revisiting or revising our decisions, much less at looking at the possibility to even reverse it.

Which moves us to the next two issues: liability and time. Any moment that you ask someone to revise a decision and specially with the stakes that the medical profession has that nobody has the time nor the inclination to open themselves for a mess.

Now, if you really want to be successful, you have to, before they even have a case with you, and specially before the diagnostic loop closes, to suggest the tests that the study has, since that has the biggest chances of looking at the right thing to look. Just be straight that you walked in with a theory. Doctors notice when they're being steered way faster than they notice when you're actually right. That's how you work with the systems that have a overworked mass trying their best.

A absolute swats of middle boxes that will not get addressed ever. As industry, it's preferable to create something that is a hard break and makes players upgrade and give people a feature to argue for said upgrade

Pornhub checking my ID is pornhub's problem, not my ISP's, not my VPN's, not every other site I visit through it. A VPN isn't a porn bypass tool that happens to also do other things, it's infrastructure I run my whole connection through, and you want it gated because one of the things people use infrastructure for is something you don't like. That's not a natural extension, that's just deciding the tool itself is guilty by association.

And thanks for confirming kids can absolutely get around your locked down network, you're just betting they won't bother. So the actual plan is "trust kids not to circumvent it" for school wifi but "can't trust adults not to circumvent it" for VPNs. Pick a level of trust and stick with it.

You've already surrendered your privacy to Meta, sure, this has nothing to do with Meta. This is your VPN, the one thing you use because you don't trust your ISP or the wifi you're on, now wanting your real ID before it works. A kid doesn't even need a VPN to doomscroll on school wifi anyway. And "let adults radicalize themselves, their choice" is rich when those adults vote and raise kids and show up swinging at school board meetings. Congrats on the policy that needed my ID and did nothing to the kid two desks over.

To further give context: the article is saying that most of the fuel transported around is done for long distances, so when something removes fuel use in the consumer side it has a double dip effect: less fuel consumed and less fuel used to transport the fuel, since long fuel supplies route diminish. It's a third order of thinking and that's why it's confusing. The article then argues that reducing that consumption in the buyers side is more effective:

This is the part that fuel-first narratives tend to miss. In a serious energy transition, coal demand falls, oil demand falls, and gas demand falls. That means fewer bulk carriers and tankers moving fossil energy around the world. The maritime sector does not have to find a one-for-one replacement fuel for all of that work, because a material share of the work should disappear.

I would argue that chipping away at all three sides of the equation reducing the amount of fuel used, the amount of fuel used for transport and transporting things using other that fuel are worth pursuing.

I love how every harm you listed, is a platform design problem, and your fix touches none of it. A kid bypassing VPN age checks can still doomscroll and Roblox all day on a school wifi with no VPN at all. The only thing you've actually accomplished is stripping privacy and security from every adult who isn't a child abuser, to feel like you did something about the ones who are.

NoScript is a layer that makes my experience on the internet so much better.

There's a easier solution by crime caused by poor people: they stop being poor. The fact that nobody tried is the thing that should be studied instead.

Because that implies more supply and landlords are happy with the supply being restricted. The people that has the money to build won't, the government will follow the money, so the state doesn't help. That kind of question reeks to "why are you poor?", well, because I have no money!

Or that capital has captured the regulators and are happy with it.

So, you changed topics from airbnb, which removes units from the rental market, to landlords in general? I think I can play that game. Lets go for the easiest one against landlords: Renting being the alternative to homelessness isn't a feature, it's a failure of housing policy. Homeowners carry 400% more net wealth than renters with comparable income, normalizing a rental market just means normalizing a wealth gap.

What is this saying differently from https://peps.python.org/pep-0827/ ?

I find interesting that so many people say that this is a hard problem, while Discord puts this nugget:

Are you a Linux user? If so, are you sick of that lovely modal we made to tell you that there’s an update you need to go manually install? IF SO, boy do I have good news for you. We’ve ported our Rust-based updater to Linux, allowing Linux to update itself just like on Windows. Additionally, we now support .rpm and .pkg.tar.zst package formats for installation.

They have more challenging clients: have to deal with screencapture, audio capture, audio routing, meanwhile supporting 3 different package repositories. You just have to accept that you should be updating your build/runtime dependencies with each version as long as they fix your underlying problems. Having a single binary that you release and works, implies that you are shipping every library your binary depends on. Windows takes care of that with winsxs, Linux asks you to do it yourself.

Because EO can get annoying to fight, companies would prefer to not fighting it. That's why these actions are to be remembered, companies will complain, but they will also comply.

Wow, this comment section is terrible, lets cut through the noise. The "you're buying a license, not a game" argument is the industry writing its own rules and then citing those rules as if they came from somewhere neutral. EULAs are not negotiated contracts; you cannot counter-offer, you cannot opt out, and there is no competing storefront with better terms. The moment you frame a unilateral "take it or leave it" clause as a legal shield against consumer protection law, you've already lost the moral argument. More importantly, that same "license" framework is what justifies their copyright protection, their anti-piracy enforcement, their DMCA claims. You don't get to invoke ownership-level legal protections against consumers while delivering zero ownership to them. Pick a lane. Also, also, for "technically impossible to preserve", the bill doesn't ask for eternal servers. It asks for an offline patch or a refund. Fan communities do the patch part for free, on weekends with no legal team, for Pete's sake! If a volunteer modder can strip authentication from a dead MMO, a company with actual engineers can do it too. And if they truly can't? Then refund the customer. The "complexity" argument was always a misdirection, the bill already hands them an exit door for genuine edge cases. They're not opposing it because it's unworkable. They're opposing it because it closes a very profitable loophole.

That's fine and all, but leave all by yourself. A territory isn't owned by the people that happen to be there. It's bound up in the systems and institutions they found and accepted, ingrained into a much bigger machinery. Alberta's own referendum already shows this: a court halted the petition because First Nations weren't consulted, because their claims predate any popular vote.

Unless you get everyone with a stake on board, which is hard, and accept it will take a long while to unwind, it's irresponsible. And if you aren't willing to do that work, just pack your bags and leave.

Even in worse case scenario, which this isn't, the affected persons would at most try to cheat the system. This proposal is really narrow to non-primary residences, that are also very valuable. None of which will affect 99.999% of the population.

I love how the comments miss that the problem these laws address deserve addressing, but from the producers side: making safe products for the public. This specific solution is fashioned after tobacco and alcohol regulation, which was never primarily about parental supervision, it's about what can be sold and how. And in public health we'd want everyone moving away from both not just kids. The boneheadness of age verification is that unlike tobacco and alcohol, where the best we can do is restrict access, online harm can actually be fixed at the root by regulating what these services are allowed to do to users in the first place.