underlipton

You could be forgiven for, "Botched execution," and, "First public execution in decades," happening, in that order, within a couple weeks of each other, coming off as a sort of Bronze Age hint given by fate and our hubris-driven refusal to take it.

And the party that's held 3 of 3 branches for twice as long over the past ~20 years, and at least 2 for 6/10 of those Congresses?

I'm not saying they're the bad guys. I'm saying that they had chances to do something, and didn't. They didn't care about implementing "The green dream or whatever they call it," even when they had a mandate, let alone punishing the people who made it a necessity by manipulating the public for several decades.

https://www.technologyreview.com/2026/10/09/1145728/we-are-p...

  If a trillion-dollar company doesn’t want you to be mean to its computer, so be it. “The reality is that these models behave, or at least are supposed to behave, in the way that the model developers want them to behave,” Röttger, the former OpenAI red-teamer, told me. “And however the model developers come up with that set of principles, that is kind of for us, the consumers, to accept.” 

lol. And we're worried about sycophantic AI.

First thing I thought of, too. "Who? ...Wait, not the cool book chick!"

Tangential: the software documented in the books next to her were likely developed with a level of rigor that consumer software can only dream of, per the seminal article on similar matters: https://www.eng.auburn.edu/~kchang/comp6710/readings/They%20...

My first read is that that's a terrible analogy, but also...

>With your logic, Google should give us their search logic/libraries, so we can build our own search engines.

Yes. Google does not actually care about search anymore, and the threat that the technology could disappear altogether is real.

If the scans were enabled by public funding, the public should have a right to access them, short of extenuating circumstances, like security concerns with the military (but that shouldn't be the default; it should be something they have to justify).

Well, that's the crux of the issue, isn't it? The museum has possession of the scans, but do they - should they - own them? Or are they resources that the public has a right to access?

I kind of don't care what "the museum" wants, though. They're stewards, not owners.

*our refusal to address/ameliorate dysfunction.

>I'm guessing b/c it can be used to make merchandise

Weird that anyone would care, since most of those works are presumably public domain. Is it not the legal right, in most of the Western world, of the public to reproduce such works, let alone to use them as elements in their own work?

VR?

I mean, the museum setting is an arbitrary middle ground between the initial intended presentation (a 19th century salon or 20th century gallery showing, in specific physical spaces, likely to be attended by specific people) and wherever and at whatever fidelity that initial presentation is reproduced. What's impure enough to be verboten? No thumbnails in museum brochures or online? Do we restrict entrance to the demographic that was initially present? Are we allowed to light them with modern fixtures? Must the air in the gallery be a reproduction of Paris or New York's historical smog?

An artist's intent should be respected, sure, but I do wonder how much of it is that, and how much of it is a sort of elitism and gatekeeping from people who are not the artist.

>With who's resources and at the expense of what other things could be done with those resources.

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that capital is apportioned with regard to virtue. Anything but. Thus, we shouldn't decide how that capital is used based on whether or not someone "deserves" it, but by whether or not it's better for society. I'd prefer "delinquents" under supervision, versus LARPing The Warriors.

OR

Elon Musk is a trillionaire, we're spending hundreds of billions to build data daycares; appealing to sanity in capital distribution was out the window years ago.

Also doesn't capture parental spend in places where the per-student cost is "lower". The district only spends $nK, but then the parents add in private tutoring, study materials like books and computer programs/subscriptions, etc. Even something as basic as the monetary value of "supervision during study", where another child is on their own because both parents have to work just to afford rent and food.

>(Green New Deal via incompetence)

Beautiful.

> If folks are mad about actions that are legal, it makes zero sense to be mad at the actor.

Just low-trust society things.

It's more, "Hey, if NASA is having trouble with this, with their big brains and frontier research, no way military capabilities exceed theirs at any real capacity." It's one thing to say they're a few years ahead, it's another thing to say that the military was working on a Hubble when the people who would eventually work on THE Hubble were still in grade school.

It makes me wonder about things like AR/VR, where, likewise, things are just starting to hit the lit sphere, with great difficulty; does the military already have tech that's 3 or 4 generations ahead?

It occurs to me that projecting the image of NASA struggling (but always successfully) to deploy this kind of tech might intended be a part of the cover.

Refurbished, perhaps? Or, again, with the intention of making them last far longer than Google would want?

It's actually a little funny that this whole thing is predicated on "beating" the Chinese, when (as they have been for the past 4 decades, and the Japanese before them) they're perfectly happy to let us do the bulk of the work and then swoop in with a svelte, cheap, user-friendly version right after. One part Apple, one part Dollar Store.

Is the thinking that the day or so between US systems achieving ASI and Chinese systems doing the same, we'll figure out a way to neutralize them indefinitely? Because otherwise, none of this makes much sense. And it only starts to swerve back to sanity if the assumption is that this isn't a race or competition, but instead a joint effort to achieve something good for humanity. But you can't really delta profit off that, can you?

Reading this is the first time in a long while that I've thought, "Man, I love this. Living in the future is awesome."

And they did it the way they always do it: start with poor people and minorities, so that the public get inculcated with the tacit notion that the people being price-gouged "deserve" it.

Chronic low-grade inflammation is the link between obesity and cancer incidence, so yes, those are not good. Better to be fat and chill (and active) than thin and stressed-out.

I would be stunned to find that less-affluent districts weren't acquiring hand-me-down Chromebooks or stretching their fleet's lifespan for as long as they could manage. Would love to believe that things have gotten better since the, "History books still mention the USSR," (true) urban legends of my Millennial youth, but I somehow doubt it.

Uh oh. I watched Person of Interest, I know how this goes down.

>I think Millennials have a lot of blame on their shoulders for being so willing to make social media such a huge part of our lives.

Uh, it was heavily marketed towards us, too. And it was a godsend to those of us stuck at home in suburban hell, around the time when retailers and fast food joints stopped hiring teenagers and cars were becoming more expensive and harder to work on without a bunch of expensive tools.

I'm more excited for the new Snap Specs. I want to see devs get on with exploring the possibilities of a decently capable set of AR glasses.

Bonus: No Facebook BS.

>You're still assuming that the insurance companies are the biggest problem, and on top of that that single-payer is the best way to improve even that part of the system.

They are, and it is. And I'm not assuming; it's been proven empirically. Chasing "choice" is a distraction; the goal is access, which choice comes alongside.

Are there any GrapheneOS-capable devices that still have an SD card slot and a 3.5mm port? Bonus points if the battery is removable.

I will also accept "Sending my consciousness back to my 2016 body." Better yet, 1996. Got some things I wanna fix.

This feels like it's begging for a lawsuit from Epic.