ianl_person

I would say deep learning is a type of regression. The architecture of the network dictates the form of the equation. We're betting that equations of that form: 1) can fit the data 2) can generalize well to data that it wasn't fit against and 3) fitting/training is tractable. That allows making predictions about complicated data like pictures, words, sounds, etc. We may know the picture and need to predict a label for it.

Should platforms be managing themselves in that way, and is that better for everyone else?

With blanket immunity, law enforcement remains the responsibility of government agencies that (1) we pay to do those jobs, (2) have due process requirements, and (3) have broad immunity within the confines of their job. Without blanket immunity for platforms, we're requiring them to take on law enforcement responsibilities with none of the usual protections in place.

Banking secrecy and KYC laws are, I think, a great example of how consumer-hostile this can be.

Bytecode programs can be more compact and built-in coroutines are useful for games.

It's a large topic and you're right, we will have to make trade-offs. For the most part I'm okay with giving up "I should have full freedom to modify a computer I own" in cases where I voluntarily allow others to use it.

One possibility I like to think about for PCs is replacing usernames with a root of trust (hash). A trusted ROMed hypervisor downloads the configuration (or loads from cache) and netboots.

But ultimately it's bigger than PCs. Embedded computing is becoming pervasive and allows easier monitoring and control of what people can and cannot do. Today people accept that owners or manufacturers can set whatever policy they like even if it's user-hostile.

I start from the premise that a computer should not betray its user.

Users often aren't the owners of their computer. Currently that means the computer may act against the interest of its user. I'd rather have a world where users can trust their computers even at the expense of the owners' control.

While a physical ME switch is vulnerable to physical attacks, it does seem like the best approach we have today for minimizing owners' ability to subvert the user.

To my reading, there are two separate items: a copyright license and a patent grant. - The former allows you to make copies of the software - The latter protects you from Facebook claiming patent infringement arising from the use of React Native (aka, Necessary Claims). It doesn't necessarily mean they have such patents but if they do, you are protected.

So if the reciprocity clause in Facebook's patent grant is a problem, all recent MIT licensed software out there without a patent grant would also be off limits.