PeterisP

It's a bit tricky, since "this call may be recorded" often is played only to you before connecting to the other person, so technically this announcement was not made to them.

The meaningful boundary between small data and large data is the difference whether the whole dataset/processing is expected to fit in the RAM of a single common machine. From that perspective, 1 billion rows a borderline case, which can be small or large depending on how large the rows are - and in this particular challenge the rows are tiny.

This is a good example of accessibility tradeoff - it obviously was needed to make the solution accessible and usable for that 20%, but in the process it made it worse for at least some of the 80%..

Sure, but in the parent example it's more like a 2k-3k license, which makes sense only if you're going to use it regularly.

No, the news industry isn't still getting money same as before - the total ad revenue the industry is getting has significantly decreased.

Newspaper ad revenue has simply collapsed (https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/11/28/audiences...) and it's not being replaced by digital media as digital ad revenue for news industry (as opposed to total digital ad revenue) is shrinking every year.

All of what you write is in support of the parent post suggestion "why don’t publishers stop using doubleclick and build their own?" - the larger margin Google is taking (no matter how) between advertisers and publishers, the better deal publishers can offer when telling advertisers "come to our platform directly and get the same ad placements much cheaper"..

I'm not a lawyer and the proper answer is likely state-dependent, but why not?

It's well established that with an appropriate warrant, LEO have always been able to come into your house without telling you and add hidden surveillance bugs to listen on your communications; they have always been allowed to physically modify or replace your phone (e.g. physical phone wiretaps a century ago); Electronic Communications Privacy Act reasserts that this applies also to electronic surveillance and digital communications; so (as a non-expert) I don't really see why that wouldn't apply to smartphone exploits as well. We do see exploits being applied to devices in LEO possession (e.g. https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/14/22383957/fbi-san-bernadin... for one random example) to recover evidence.

The main restriction is the constitutional limits of 4th amendment which requires specific warrants for each case - which is a significant practical obstacle, so the circumstances in which warrantless wiretapping is permitted (e.g. by PATRIOT act) is a contentious issue; however, it's not relevant if a proper warrant is obtained.

These are the luxury villas of the super-rich Romans, in the best-resort-close-to-Rome where they'd live while they didn't need to be in Rome for political reasons. They definitely could afford the "A team".

The point I'm hearing in the parent post is more like that many of the state actors using such attacks against domestic targets actually may be legally allowed to do so, if they have passed laws which permit their own security services to use such software on their residents' phones.

Even in USA that likely could be legal with an appropriate court warrant, and many other countries have more permissive constitutions.

It may be relevant that 'fruit of the poisonous tree' is not a general law principle but rather a doctrine specific to modern U.S. law, established only in early 20th century as a specific interpretation of the 4th amendment to the U.S. constitution - the evidence policy is entirely opposite in most (possibly even all? It's hard to tell) other places worldwide as well as in classic (e.g. Roman) law, prioritizing the role of evidence in demonstrating truth and facts, and if some person or organization performed an offense in obtaining it, they should be prosecuted separately for that offense, but it doesn't by itself disqualify the evidence.

In the current world an "email address" is not solely (or sometimes even primarily) for delivering email, but rather an identity or username for various systems, such as for signing git commits. So a key linked to an identity (email address) does not imply in any way that this key is also used or usable for encrypted communication.

A key difference from your examples is that the enemy doesn't have the capability to simply (and risk-free) send an arbitrary number of bullets at your soldiers' hearts or RPG rounds at your vehicles; the major "cost of delivery" is not the bullet/RPG but the trooper (and his risk) bringing the gun to get a chance to make a targeted shot with the bullet/RPG.

If bullets could leave the factory and magically fly straight at your soldiers, expensive single-use ballistic plates would not be a practical solution - you'd simply run out of them as you can't possibly produce as many of them as the enemy can make bullets.

The issue is that these costs of handling cash are largely fixed - marginally, if your store takes $100 in cash, your cash-handling expenses and effort stay the same, but if you take $100 by card, your fees directly increase. You avoid the expenses of handling cash only if you don't take cash at all.

The premise isn't really accurate - "clean air" is a local phenomenon, not a resource that gets spent or that we run out of; and furthermore, breathing doesn't consume clean air, so it's irrelevant how many people there are for that aspect. When we talk about "clean air" we mostly mean things like particulate matter or pollution by sulfur or other contaminants. Breathing does create CO2, but growing CO2 doesn't make air "unclean" but "only" affects the greenhouse effect, and also the breathing of people/animals is not a major driver of CO2 growth, fossil fuels are.

That being said, the air situation is generally improving because of people getting wealthier. Because air cleanliness is local, it matters much more where pollution is happening than how much pollution is happening, as e.g. indoor wood burning for cooking or warmth affects you much more than a much larger pollution through a power plant, and improved technology also makes a big difference even if you're burning the same quantity of the same thing.

In developed countries, air is cleaner than ever - London had notoriously unclean air, being the center of the industrial revolution, but looking at current data (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_pollution_in_the_United_Ki...) 2000 London had immensely cleaner air than 1900 London, and 2024 London has much cleaner air than 2000 London. Similarly, while global deforestation matters for global issues like climate change, in developed countries there is no deforestation - Europe has reforested in the last century, increasing its forest cover, and USA has kept a rather stable forest area over the same time.

In developing countries, the industrialization does come at a cost of local air pollution until the country's wealth grows enough that they "choose to buy the luxury of clean air" by changing local laws to favor more expensive but cleaner ways to do the same thing. So currently the most polluted air is in places like Bangladesh and Pakistan, but there's a clear path for improving that when they come to prioritizing that - because it's inherently some tradeoff between the material welfare of your people and the physical welfare of air quality, because poverty can kill or hurt as much or more than polluted air. That being said, e.g. China seems to have peaked at its local air pollution and is expected to get cleaner air over the coming decades - it's not "running out" of clean air.

Such a person would be still paying that tax indirectly as it would be funded by any payments for the "land they use" e.g. housing rent would be directly influenced by that land tax, just as the prices of services (rent can often be ~30% of the base costs of urban service providers).

Sure, but it also doesn't make it necessary or useful to implement booting from that port - booting from a port IMHO is not a feature that Apple wants to offer to its target audience at all, so it's sufficient if some repair technician can do that according to a manual which says which port to use in which scenario.

Do you think that NIMBY factor won't apply when replacing this bridge? And are you really certain that "replacing a bridge" can't or won't turn into building some tunnels during the process, as some people are already suggesting? IMHO everything is possible.

Major infrastructure projects everywhere tend to be both late and wildly over budget, but the point is that in USA the initially budgeted cost (which is optimistic and doesn't get met) is outlandishly expensive even when compared to the actual wildly over budget cost of other places; what other countries say "wildly over budget" is still cheaper than a USA project that would get done on time below budget.

Would it make sense to explicitly implement conservation of energy?

I.e. do a simple method but calculate the total energy at the beginning, and at each step adjust the speeds (e.g. proportionally) so that the total energy matches the initial value - you'll still always get some difference due to numerical accuracy issues, but that difference won't be growing over time.

At 1.4 Nm torque, the main motors would likely struggle manipulating a 0.5 kg item, they aren't strong enough to hold a monitor.

But you don't need "most of the researchers" or relocating them, nor you need legal data - with sufficient money and hardware, if North Korea or any other country puts a bunch of median CS grad-students to the task, they can train whatever models they want; the code and data is practically available and will be, no matter what the bans.

Not really - "arguing over where to draw the line" would be a discussion about how a hypothetical new law should treat model weights; however, assertions about whether they are a derivative work (or even "work" as such, in the sense of copyright law - noncreative transformations aren't copyrightable works, no matter how much "sweat of brow" or money they took) is a discussion about where the old copyright laws have drawn the line, and the "should's" don't matter there, it's about how the courts will interpret the precedent, and at the moment they haven't said that they are derived works, and while they could declare that, there are all kinds of arguments why they also might declare the opposite.

As the parent post tried to substantiate, for current economics the principle subjects really are not limited to human production, consumption and exchange, but also include subfields that focus on all choices that humans make - things like revealed preferences vs expressed preferences or risk aversion are a focus of economics, but they apply to consumption just as well as for other choices people make about e.g. intimate relations or choice of hobbies or music.

Well, sure, one thing is that the absolute numbers do increase, so for any given notion of "good enough", every device at some point will reach the level where it will be able to run it.

I really doubt it.

"Tomorrow" your desktop computer might be twice powerful but at the same time the "good model of tomorrow" will be four or ten times larger - I'd expect that the gap between what can be done locally versus what is offered as a service will grow, not shrink.

Whatever their contract with the phone's user says, it many states they also need the consent of the other party of that conversation, which not always will have any agreement with Meta as they may not be a Facebook user. If they don't have consent of both parties in 100% cases where it's required and there is even a single conversation they wiretapped illegally, that would be a crime.

What heavy metals? Leaded fuels aren't used for decades. Diesel exhaust doesn't really leave anything worth caring about on the crops, "natural" pollution from rain, soil, bugs and birdshit is an order of magnitude more relevant than exhaust, and the things intentionally sprayed on fields - fertilizer, herbicides, pesticides - is much worse than those, even for organic farms manure and their range of approved pesticides are applied in huge quantities and will mean polluted crops that (obviously) need to be washed and will have all kinds of harmful residue anyway.

If the device was solar instead of diesel, that wouldn't move the needle on the dirtiness of the crops. Even the pollution from wear&tear on tires and brakes is more relevant than fuel - we worry about fossil fuels due to the global effect of greenhouse gas emissions, we also care about people breathing in small particles from diesel exhaust, but it doesn't really harm food in farms.

The robot arm would still have to be mounted on a truck, wouldn't it? It's not like it will be half a mile long and just reach over the whole field.

Also, robot arms can be a quite expensive way of doing things; I saw a prototype that used tethered drones (like the common quadcopters, but power and data comes over a cable) to manipulate things as apparently it was like 10 times cheaper than a robot arm capable of reaching the same distances and transporting the same weight payload.

You can do tab-separated "CSV" and it'll be much better, avoid the quoting and delimiter issues that somehow trip up something half the time, and pretty much all these tools have always supported that format as well.

Meta is free to charge money and/or run ads, but what it can't do is do mass tracking of EU people unless they somehow really want to and freely opt in to that. Charging for an ad-free experience is fine, but charging so that you don't get tracked is not a legal option in EU, privacy is an unalienable human right that's not for sale no matter what contracts they write.