djcapelis
I think you’re getting tripped up by some specific wording and managing to miss the point the poster was making. The point should be taken seriously even if imprecisely articulated. While most folks are against the cartels, there’s a much wider range of belief on how much they warrant government or military intervention and to what degree we should be spending various resources on them. The historical state of play was(is?) that cartels are criminal organizations which are generally a policing matter that has escalated to specialized policing agencies and multinational networks of policing agencies. The marked escalation of the military into this is a more recent piece that is somewhat more controversial. One doesn’t have to be “in favor of the cartel” to ask questions about whether our military should be bombing boats or invading countries to ostensibly neutralize organizations that historically have been subject to policing operations.
To go back to the parallel… the public wasn’t in favor of Al Qaeda before 9/11 either, but there was a huge difference in the level of response the public was in favor of after. It turned from an intelligence monitoring level of response into an active military invasion of multiple countries.
I think it’s just because there’s enough people working there that figure that they will eventually make it work. No one needs Claude to run a vending machine so these public failures are interesting experiments that get everyone talking. Then, one day, (as the thinking often goes) they’ll be able to publish a follow up and basically say “wow it works” and it’ll have credibility because they previously were open about it not working, and comments like this will swing people to say things like “I used to be skeptical about but now!”
Now whether they actually get it working in the future because the model becomes better and they can leave it with this level of “free reign”, or just because they add enough constraints on it to change the problem so it happens to work… that we will find out later. I found it fascinating that they did a little bit of both in version 2.
And they can’t really lose here. There’s a clear path to making a successful vending machine, all you have to do is sell stuff for more than you paid for it. You can enforce that outright if needed outside an LLM. We’ve have had automated vending machines for over 50 years and none of them ask your opinion on what something should be priced. How much an LLM is involved in it is the only variable they need to play with. I suspect anytime they want they can find a way where it’s loosely coupled to the problem and provides somewhat more dynamism to an otherwise 50 year old machine. That won’t be hard. I suspect there’s no pressure on them to do that right now, nor will there be for a bit.
So in the meantime they can just play with seeing how their models do in a less constrained environment and learn what they learn. Publicly, while gaining some level of credibility as just reporting what happened in the process.
We were left behind because we shelter our own car companies in a gentle cradle where they don’t have to compete. Both parties did this while saying they wanted to “level the playing field” but chose rates that were protectionist and made competitive products prohibitive not rates that actually created a level field.
We were left behind because we tried to protect our companies from facing the future. People in this country expect that one can stand on the shore of a beach and vote on whether the tide should go in or out, and that’s just not how the world works.
So, no.
9 bit bytes never made significant headway because a 12.5% overhead cost for any of these alternatives is pretty wild. But there are folks and were folks then who thought it was worth debating and there certainly are advantages to it, especially if you look at use beyond memory storage. (i.e. closer to "Harvard" architecture separation between data / code and security implications around strict separation of control / data in applications like networking.)
It's worth noting that SECDED ECC memory adds about a 20% overhead, though it can correct single bit flips whereas 9-bit bytes with a parity bit can only detect (but not correct) bit flips which makes it useful in theory but not very useful in practice.
This will change when the high speed rail to Bangkok is complete, but we’re not quite there yet.
Hopefully soon. :)
I also see why people are interpreting my comment to mean that because it’s a restriction on my speech it’s not constitutional because that’s how people usually act on the Internet. But I don’t and didn’t. What I said was it was a restriction on my speech and I believe that’s more of interesting case than the restriction on TikTok’s speech. The ramification of that is that the courts would adjudicate the free speech restriction at an appropriate scrutiny level and determine whether that restriction is allowable. As we all know, some restrictions are allowable and constitutional. Others aren’t.
It’s not unreasonable, wild, or strange to point out that there’s a restriction on speech here, and to point out that conflict needed to be resolved to determine constitutionality.
Most are handled at the district level, if the court felt there was no legal issue at play, they would have denied cert. Their opinion did end up being per curiam which suggests the court feels clearly about the case, but does not suggest they never felt there was an issue worth arguing.
(I also agree that this is a different case, I only point to Bernstein because it is a clear part of case law which states that software distribution is and can be a free speech issue and restraints on it would expected to be evaluated with some level of scrutiny.)
Your comment however draws a weird parallel later on though but first let’s take a moment here:
> Your 1st amendment rights are not being infringed by being denied access to TikTok
That is what the court found but it opens some interesting questions that really do have impacts.
I would bet that you would find a law that says op-eds can only be published in an approved list of venues to be clearly wrong, yet it is equally just determining venue and not content.
As would a law which banned foreign ownership of venues while also introducing a regulatory scheme for domestic ownership stakes of sensitive industries and defined news and commentary as a nationally security sensitive industry. (Which this law essentially does for certain types of apps.)
So at some point a law can be “content neutral” and about access to venue not content but I bet almost any reasonable person would agree it’s an unreasonable restraint.
Now for a situation you draw the above as a parallel with but is very different:
> just as the far right isn’t having their 1st amendment rights being infringed by being denied to use BlueSky as their platform.
Bluesky can do whatever they want but if the government were to get involved in defining regulations around which users could use BlueSky… yes absolutely I would expect it to be thrown out on first amendment grounds and expect it’s a significantly stronger case than any of the examples above.
It’s a much weaker and almost irrelevant case when directed at a non-governmental organization in which some folks are using “free speech” as an argument over what entities which are not enjoined from almost any actions may do with their own venues. But yeah, if it was the government telling BlueSky who to ban? You bet that’s got first amendment implications and I’d expect a court to review it under strict scrutiny. (And I wouldn’t expect it to survive.)
They concluded that these regulations were okay at those levels of scrutiny, but it is not absurd or ridiculous to analyze these as forms of speech, and indeed, our courts do so.
That said, just because there is a conflict with freedom of speech doesn’t prevent all government regulation, it just means the laws involved must pass an elevated level of scrutiny. That applies here, for multiple reasons, and with multiple parties.
Another huge difference is broadcasting is about usage of a shared resource and has always had regulations on who is allowed to do what. They don’t ban RT from setting up their own venue or printing a newspaper. RT and other outlets are able to operate in the US and people are able to chose to watch them.
It’s a restriction on my speech. Telling me where I can publish a video? Telling me what apps I can download? Telling my software vendor what software they’re allowed to let me get? Telling internet providers what servers they’re allowed to let my device access?
The law doesn’t fine TikTok. The law fines the people who let me download an application I’ve chosen to use. At $5,000 per instance.
It’s not about TikTok’s rights being violated. It’s about mine, and yours.
Also. Comparing support for MAID with defendant rights is a false equivalence. The correct equivalence there is whether or not someone still favors criminal rights if they were personally on trial. Not someone who personally becomes less magnanimous to criminals they are personally affected by. The equivalence the other direction would be asking loved ones about someone else's decision to undergo MAID, and asking them subset of folks around them who aren't ready to let them go yet how they feel about MAID. (Though in both cases of MAID and not wanting the wrong person to be thrown in jail for a criminal action as a victim, I suspect the drop in support is less than you think it is.)
While startups use options, most large public tech companies typically do not.
Did you think CAHSR was going to lay the track by hand?
This is what zero miles of track looks like a year later: https://youtu.be/luX35wVJt84
You can today in the Central Valley look at large construction sites and structures, some of which are finished. Go 100 miles up the alignment, and see construction and structures there too. None of those sites have laid track yet, but there’s hundred of miles of trackway under development.
Track comes last.
CARB’s history and track record working through bending the arc of the industry for this type of thing is pretty good, even without Mary Nichols at the helm.
(Another thing worth noting here is most car manufacturers have had a large preference towards consistency and stability in their regulatory agreements, so they often would prefer to sit down and plan a timeline for transitions that doesn’t keep changing around on them and their peers.)
I’m sorry if this is weird, but as someone who also went to UCSC for grad school I found this a bit confusing. So I looked it up and you started at UCSC at 2014, yeah?
UCSC grad students had GSHIP coverage for years before that time. I myself was on it when I joined starting in 2009, and there’s plenty of documentation of fights folks had over trying to get better rates and coverage on GSHIP well before both our times: https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/05/13/18415831.php (Which personally I thought was pretty good especially after the expansion of airlift coverage which was an unfortunately common problem for UCSC’s location “over the hill” from many tier 1 emergency rooms.)
Maybe I missed something when I was there 2009-2015. But what did the union representation and bargaining bring to the table there?
From a couple years ago, it doesn’t seem to have resulted in anything close to a reasonable or even livable stipend for a researcher. It was bad when I was in grad school, but I was pretty appalled to hear during the wildcat strikes ten years later that despite the increase in costs there didn’t seem to be that much change in the stipend amounts for graduate researchers. The students who were wildcatting out of frustration seemed to have a pretty good reason IMO.
I think that meets a pretty similar pattern of unions focusing on fighting about healthcare while leaving wages to stagnate over years of price increases, which I guess also applies in many unrepresented UC roles and in dynamics elsewhere. I personally didn’t see much difference between UAW’s representation and not when I was there, but I guess I didn’t have a huge point of comparison.
I hope whatever this new swell of support is provides livable stipends for young researchers though. So I hope I’m either wrong or grad student unions are able to win more in bargaining in the future. :)
The comparison is the creative and artistic fields, which absolutely host events and all kinds of opportunities for practicing creatives to meet other practicing creatives and discuss their work.
That’s because programming isn’t an engineering exercise. It’s art. Which isn’t to say engineering practices don’t improve the practice of our art. Just ask a large sculpture artist how much engineering they have to do to put different types of metal in the air.
The fact that programming pays so well has led many to believe the nature of our field is fundamentally different than what it is. We are lucky enough to be passionate about one of the few artistic and creative fields that is extremely lucrative.
We should never lose sight of how fortunate we are.
This is just misinformation that’s been repeated so much as a meme people think it’s true based on a misreading of the simple fact that a study which said if you do experience a breakthrough infection with a high viral load, vaccinated people transmit that viral load as readily as a non-vaccinated person. What is clearly not true is that vaccinated people have the same likelihood of having an infection with that high viral load in the first place. Which they don’t and why vaccines remain an important tool to reduce spread.
In addition to averaging lower peak viral levels for infection, vaccinated people has faster clearance rates, which means they are contagious for shorter amounts of time: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.28.21261295v...
Vaccinated people have faster symptom onset as their bodies react to the virus faster, which means they can test and isolate sooner.
Vaccinated people are still less likely to be infected than non vaccinated people: https://spiral.imperial.ac.uk/handle/10044/1/90800
Vaccinated people are also less likely to collapse the local medical system in surges because their disease course is less severe: https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/73/12/2257/6124429