mayneack

I've seen this sort of thing happen when something starts small and no one cares and then it gets traction. Eg: If you have a tiny toy project that the engineers call one thing, you might publish it under that name. If it then gets the attention of some higher level marketing team, you might rebrand it to align with the rest of the company.

No idea if that happened here or in google generally.

The relative price of those cramped urban centers where this is true suggests that at least a few more people would choose this path if it were cheaper.

A settlement can be in favor of apple still

this will settle before it gets to discovery I bet

Either laws work the way they're written and 4 members of the court disagree or they work the way the Supreme Court says they work and a worse ruling could threaten those citizens.

And just like that—surprise!—one AI company bails out another AI company's grift. Google agreeing to rent compute from xAI (cough, "SpaceX") magically makes them eligible for inclusion in the S&P500.

Americans, they are looting your life savings, the ones you earned through labour that they are gleefully replacing. Your descendants will never have the chance you had.

https://techcrunch.com/2026/06/05/google-will-pay-spacex-920...

Daniel has been posting for months (years?) about how much scrutiny he gets from security researchers and various automated tools. I wouldn't expect curl to be the average case for mythos.

It's clear that politicians don't get this from the way they talk about a "mere 1%" wealth tax. None of them would speak of adding a "mere 20%" to the income tax rate, even though that's mathematically the same thing. [2]

This is the wrong way of thinking about it. It's not adding 20% to an already taxed entity, it's adding taxes where there weren't before. Adding 20% on top of the income tax would indeed be controversial. In his framing the rate of return is effectively untaxed income, so it would be more accurate to say that this is like adding income tax to a currently untaxed income stream.

Arguing over implementation details is a pretty common thing for laws to do. Maybe it would weaken the logical consistency of their laws, but that's not really a thing that matters.

Why do states allow hunting some animals and not others? Why do states distinguish between different forms of income to tax? It's all implementation details.

I think the "black box" framing that it uses neatly applies the same theory to organizations and ais. It doesn't matter whether there's technological or organizational reasons inside the black box to dodge accountability, the outcome is the same.

There's a whole industry of hiking gear that has been steadily trading weight for durability. I only hike in running shoes (altras) which only last me 400 or so miles. It's way less durable than my old boots.

I doubt this sort of thing will translate, but I wouldn't put it past hikers to opt for something less durable to shave a few grams.

Why stop there. Why not deny them modern medicine or nutrition?

Curious how this compares to presidio which mixes regex with a model: https://microsoft.github.io/presidio/

A16Z was (is?) up to their eyeballs in crypto as well.

Pretty sure it does https://flight-viz.com/cockpit.html?lat=34.026608&lon=-118.3...

This is useful for redirecting x to xcancel

Neither of those controls their ecosystem. Truth Social runs on Activity Pub.

Yes. If you're just making arbitrary choices on each instance you're not a free speech zealot you're just making judgement calls like everyone else.

In what world is twitter the least censored site? The big 3 federated sites are much more open if you want it to be and X is a walled garden.

How is twitter more of a free speech platform than the three open federated options (activity pub, at protocol, and nostr)?

Half this post is about how few people they're reaching on X.

Bluesky might have be niche in terms of users but it's an open platform like activity pub so it's at least quite aligned with the EFF mission.

I promise there are thousands to millions of people just as ruthless. Most of them just end up as petty criminals.

That may or may not be true in aggregate, but for extreme outliers it's impossible to separate from survivorship bias. Are Musk and Andreeson really the most skilled entrepreneurs in the world or are they just good enough for luck to propel them to stratospheric success?

It's a little light on rigor. There's a lot of "X happened before Y therefore X caused Y" but I think it's a really good articulation of some of the problems it tackles.

"this violates our TOS" is a classic Accountability Sink. "Polymarket has a rule against harassment, so we obviously did all we could!"

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

Then Google shouldn't be using something so unreliable for anything important. Arguing that random users should know the difference between cheap and frontier models is also not compelling. It's all the same "AI" to most people.

I'd be shocked if international travel was the algorithmic tell, but in the book Careless People, the author discusses extensively that they (Facebook's political team) did a lot of manually curating the experience for politicians across the world to help push for Facebook's side in whatever issue was important on a given day.

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

They absolutely can afford to be a-political. It may not maximize their wealth, but they can afford a little less maximizing.

Renters often pay for utilities.