yokem55

The '25 ioniq 5's bring a lot of the buttons back. The climate ones are capacative, but are dedicated buttons.

Reversibility is a trade-off. It's great if you are on the sending end of a transaction. It can be a nightmare on the receiving end. Irreversibility is the other way around. And both approaches have different costs and assumptions.

As much as people bandy the term around, copyright has never applied to input, and the output of a tool is the responsibility of the end user.

Where this breaks down though is that contributory infringement is a still a thing if you offer a service aids in copyright infringement and you don't do "enough" to stop it.

Ie, it would all be on the end user for folks that self host or rent hardware and run an LLM or Gen Art AI model themselves. But folks that offer a consumer level end to end service like ChatGPT or MidJourney could be on the hook.

The solution here is for Spacex to tighten up their planned reentry corridors. At this point they should have more than enough experience in their ops to narrow down the likely debris field to a narrow strip that can be easily flown around instead of the huge swath of Indian Ocean they'd been allowing for.

The dilemma here is that the incentive to capture value for yourself comes from the legitimate fear that someone else will try to capture all that residual value you leave on the table instead of allowing that value to be socialized in a healthy way. Which means enshitification becomes the default for everyone.

There's a lot of good cryptography and game theory and economic incentive alignment that can be done to constrain and limit the trust assumptions people have to make. But ultimately, all this does is redistribute and dilute those trust assumptions. It doesn't eliminate them. There is no such thing as "trustlessness".

One of the people behind SSB was Paul Frazee. He's now the CTO of BlueSky.

Reversibility is great for consumers who are sending money in exchange for products and services. It can be a nightmare for people who receive the money and are providing the products and services.

And it isn't just businesses who carry this risk. If a business was depending on a large inflow to make payroll, and that inflow gets reversed, the people who are expecting payment for their labor also are subject to a payment reversal.

There's definitely a lot of benefits to reversibility, but it has very real costs and tradeoffs.

Eh... There's pretty good odds Coinbase will still give customers that either deposit to TC or have funds that came out of TC trouble because the broader AML compliance rules very much still exist.

What this ruling does mean though is that the government can't prosecute a US person for using TC.

If they can get ~100k subs to a $10/mo premium service similar to discord nitro, they are probably close to breaking even at the current scale and ops methodology. Which seems feasible.

If you don't like the Discover feed, you are more then free to remove it from your account and add other feeds which are open source. Or don't add any feeds and just use the default "Following" feed which is just the posts of the folks who you follow and their re-posts, in flat reverse chronological order. That's it.

The networking for Linux "containers" uses virtual veth devices combined with network namespaces that have their own routing table and packet filtering. Now, you are still dependent on what kernel modules the host is running for various capabilities, but otherwise applications running in those network namespaces effectively have their own network stack.

T.38 can help - but the codec reinvite process to switch to it when you detect fax tones can trip up a lot of machines .. And you still have to transcode the t38 back to 711 or tdm to send the call upstream which can be problematic as well on some switches.

A fax machine can be plopped down and hooked up to a POTS.

Well, in many places, traditional copper pots is dying faster then the fax machines people still want to use. Fax over VoIP can work, but it makes for a lot of headaches if it doesn't.

They've had multiple private VC rounds. They also have had several milestone based development contracts from the government to develop capabilities (iss cargo and crew mainly) while charging the government less to do that dev work then their competitors bid.

As far as I’m aware, there’s no way of validating something without observing it.

That's where zero knowledge proofs come in. If you know the root hash at state a, and the new root hash at state b is given along with a zk proof, that proof data can quickly prove that the state change from a to b was arrived at correctly. In this case, the benefit of doing this on ethereum (or other evm l1 blockchain) is that those proofs can be validated on chain.

I've used systemd-sysext's to add system level software to my Steam Deck withough having to unseal the root partition. It's slightly annoying in that that I have to rebuild the ext's every time the system updates, but otherwise they work great.

He's got 11B in restitution to pay. Any inheritance he gets will be forfeited to that.

If 20+ years isn't enough of a deterrent, I seriously doubt even more would be.

Technically, you are creating taxable events when going in and out of stables to normal USD. Its just that there usually only very minimal gain or loss in the transaction.

From the above EFF article:

First, a derivative work still has to be “substantially similar” to the original in order to be infringing. If the original is transformed or abridged or adapted to such an extent that this is no longer true, then it’s not a derivative work. A 10-line summary of a 15,000-line epic isn’t a derivative work, and neither are most summaries of books that people make in order to describe those copyrighted works to others.

The statistics generated about the works entered as input, do not resemble the original works. Nor can those statistics on their own reproduce the original work. At most they are brief mathematical summaries of the work. And it's only after combining those stats with the stats of billions of other works (which is its own creative process to determine the best statistical methodologies to achieve that combination) that anything intelligble can be produced in the output stage.

Because music has a lot of additional law written giving additional protections to song-writers independent of performers and recordings. That gives the abstract tonal sequence it's own copyright.

I think that from a legal standpoint, the actual technical means by which something was accomplished doesn't matter if the process as a whole is effectively copyright infringement.

Which is why when the user of the model prompts for something infringing, and is successful at getting close to verbatim output (because the prompt was too constraining, becuase the work is overrepresented in the training) it is that particular output that is infringing. And maybe that means that services operating that prompt/response software are guilty of contributory infringment if they can't adequetly prevent that kind of output.

But that doesn not mean that training the model was infringing. Nor does that mean distribution of the model is infringing. And if a user of the prompt/response software never prompts for anything infringing, and the software never spontaneously recreates anything infringing, there's no infringment happening.

There are lots of technologies out there that are highly capable of enabling infringment at a massive scale. And where the vast majority of their actual usage is absolutely infringing. But we don't completely shut down those technologies that on their own - are not infringing. Bittorrent clients are pefectly legal to develop. And distribute. And people use those clients to commit infringment at large scale. But they are still pefectly legal to write and distrubute.

The (in my view) problem with the author's argument is that the first step he claims is happening, is not. Publicly available content gets read, as is the point of publicly publishing it. Then the user uses a computer program to make some statistics about the bit of content. Those bits of statistics about that specific work, on their own, cannot reproduce or recrate the specific work. Then those statistics are put into a database and combined with the stats about billions of other works. Then another program is written to query the database to make probabilistic guesses responding to the prompts from a user. It's this last stage could potentially recreate a work in an infringing manner. But everthing that led up to that point (creating the model) is simply not something that current law considers to be infringing of copyright in any meaningful way. It doesn't even require a "fair use" assessment, because, creating statistics about a work, that cannot on their own reproduce the work, does not create a copy, nor does it make a public performance of the work.

Is this all terribly unfair to the people that published their work assuming this couldn't happen? Yes. But the response needs to be "lets come up with and pass better law" and not "lets twist and contort the current law to be something it's not."

Part of the problem is that there is a huge space where something can be: A) Designed and deployed in good faith (not designed as an actively bad-faith fraud) B) Still is an extremely risky investment C) While there can still be participants (not necessarily the proginators), who operate in bad faith to exploit the shortcomings of a good-faith design

Figuring out which is which while avoiding getting rekt is not easy, but can be done.

Dogecoin does do something different - it has ongoing tail inflation. Whether that is a good idea or not is debatable. But it does operate differently then btc.

That 'usage' is taking statistical notes about the work (creating factual statements about the work) and imputing those notes into a database, averaged with a few billion other notes about other works. That is a usage that copyright under current law simply doesn't cover or protect for. It doesn't even need the analysis if 'fair use' because, there's no copying or public performance happing in the creation/training of the model.

Where infringement arguably can happen is when that model is used in the generation of content - and if the user is prompting regenerate a protected work, then that is where the infringement happens. But not before. Maybe the various ai services can adequately guard against that illicit usage. Maybe not. And if not, its those live services that would need to be shut down.

But the creation and training of a model, and even distributing that model for people to use with their own computers in private does not engage in copyright infringement.

The agents being hired are mostly just support agents answering the phone. And on net the investment in improving the IRS is a net positive on revenue because they can more effectively go after folk who are cheating.

It's amazing how some folks will be ardently opposed to "defunding the police" ... except for the tax police.

Is there any detail anywhere on what exactly is being inspected? Just the bits of airframe around the where the panel that failed? Can a broader issue with how the airframes were manufactured be ruled out at this point?

The cynical part of me wonders if this isn't just a bit of PR to 'ground' the planes for 'inspections' without actually addressing some kind of root cause.

Bit torrent clients are almost exclusively used for copyright infringement. Yet they are perfectly legal to develop and distribute. On the flip side, operating a company premised around easy copyright infringement was ruled to be illegal (Napster).

Where we might end up is in a situation where it is legal to train a model. Legal to produce software for using the model to generate content. Legal to distribute all of the above. But offering a standing service that does the above and is capable of creating infringing work is illegal. Great news for llama hobbyists. Bad news for ChatGPT.