enigmurl

More so the former

Presumably GP was implying that adding a second plane increases the chance of a crash, not claiming that it increases the conseuqences should it happen

Assuming it's a reference to RLHF? Not sure

$1.2 billion per month would be $14.4 billion per year

Would it really be lower on the bot net in the majority of cases? I'd imagine that real users probably wouldn't want to have their entire cpu spent on this.

In general, it's pretty hard to establish that an algorithm is "not useful" for a particular discipline.

I understand that it may be viewed as unpleasant, but ultimately if you install a proxy on your end that the server does not like (say an ad-blocker), I don't think it would be fair for the server to say its suffering a MITM attack. Likewise, even if the client is not happy with the third party the server is requesting, it still doesn't make sense to call it a MITM, IMO.

Man in the middle attack typically implies an unwanted third party, which in this case is not true since Cloudfare is explicitly and voluntarily trusted by the host server. It wouldn't be all that different if the web server had the browserintegrity checks developed themselves.

Isn't the point that Cloudfare is essentially enforcing the rules then?

If it's truly the case that you're paying for Google Search, that would be an even bigger incentive for consumers to leave to a different search engine (in essence, they would be paid to switch).

Texas operates its own independent electrical grid (presumably to avoid federal energy regulations, though I'm not sure)[1], whereas the rest of America operates roughly on two interstate grid regions. I would agree that it's ignorant to claim Texas is doing nothing against climate change though.

[1] https://www.epa.gov/green-power-markets/us-grid-regions

Sure, but with that kind of argument will we ever be able to make the switch to a better vcs if one exists? You have to start somewhere.

Allows you to sign in on (iPhone) apps a bit easier I would image

Isnt this more analogous to an end-to-end encrypted group chat than a backdoor?

I was speaking somewhat hypothetically, as for now I would agree that it's tenuous at best to call self driving cars safer. My point was more that even if they were provably safer, people would have ego problems in claiming they are more dangerous than self driving cars.

Even the majority of people who are so called bad drivers have killed zero people, and no one is going to call themselves a bad driver, fewer are going to admit an AI is better at them (even if it's statistically true).

Ah I see, fair point then I would agree.

You could argue that for any service provider then. Why is Intel selling CPUs when it could be making profit from the cloud data centers themselves?

In which case, wouldn't Apple be offering an advantage in comparison to the android eco system, and therefore deserve the right to charge money for it?

It's not actually the essence of the problem, it's just one of many complications...