beezlebroxxxxxx

Somewhat incredibly, the administration is citing a McCarthy-era 1952 law that many read as explicitly antisemitic and targeted at Jewish eastern-european survivors of the holocaust lest they be too sympathetic to communism as the legal basis for these actions. That law sought to keep people out, but the administration seems to believe it can also be used to deport people.

An ironic quote:

"In a 1952 edition of The New York Times, then-Anti-Defamation League president Benjamin Epstein was quoted as saying that immigration regulations like the McCarran law were 'examples of the worst kind of legislation, discriminatory and abusive of American concepts and ideals.'"[0]

[0]: https://forward.com/news/702427/mccarran-walter-act-state-de...

A big problem is to what extent do future business models disrupt the public perception that AI is "objective" or unbiased, a perception that is often itself the product of these companies' own marketing. When the very results of a prompt to an agent/LLM, such as ChatGPT, are suspected of profit/corporate interests over accuracy, why would anyone use it over the dozen other players in the field? This is precisely the thing that has soured google search results.

> If someone could hack into Apple, download the schematics of their chips and the source for their OS, and then post it on the internet, after which a third party could sell commercial products based on said data, there wouldn't be a software/hardware economy around of very long.

Part of this tension arises out of a social understanding: we want competition precisely because we value the way it keeps an industry/nation "alive" --- there will be "winners and losers"--- and yet we also want to balance that with a coherent idea of ownership such that it's not just a complete lawless free-for-all. In other words, we don't want intellectual property to be too strong because it's economically and culturally stultifying.

Business interests naturally seek the complete nullification of competition, so they promote as strong as possible copyright protections; while the vox populi understands that common culture is the primordial goo that all intellectual property arises out of and returns to and finds copyright at base rather arbitrary. The legal, political, and social, understanding of copyright we have has arisen out of balancing these competing interests (themselves in productive competition) understanding that finding the right balance is precisely what has made a country like America, for example, so successful.

That the balance seems so out of whack in the direction of large and monopoly seeking business suggests the ways in which large business interests exerts undo influence on the legal and political landscape.

Most people find the traditional explanation for copyright, "everything emerges from the commons and eventually returns to the commons, so artists and creators should be entitled to ownership of intellectual property for a limited amount of time." The problem becomes when "limited" is stretched from 5 years from moment of publishing, say, to an artist's life + 150 years. Most people find the former reasonable and the latter ridiculous.

What you're describing is endemic across HN (and tech, tbh). Lots of people on here "know" computers/programming/CS very well. They, naturally, tend to use analogies to computers/programming/CS when trying to explain or "think out loud" in their comments. That's fine. It's what they know. The common problem arises when people forget they're analogizing and begin to see their analogy as ontologically and conceptually identical to the thing they were making an analogy for. This requires a certain amount of ego, echo chambers, and self-valorization, so that they never have to face the actual issues with these analogies.

But as many comments here have pointed out, studying neuroscience, for example, usually makes those analogies seem painfully inadequate. The same is true in philosophy of mind, for example.

It depends on the country, but my understanding is if you're in Canada, then what you're doing is legal.

Personally, I've found computer writing is perfectly fine for note taking; but, once I actually want to compose something that I've really thought through, I'll turn to handwriting for complete sentences.

I think the internet generally makes way too much out of which tool you use. Use whatever works for you and what allows you to do it consistently.

Definitely over-engineering. But I also think the industry is just extremely bad at hiring anything above junior or entry-level. Job postings are so generic and interchangeable between companies that they don't actually tell you what the role is or what the company is looking for. Everyone wants to cast the widest possible net so that they catch some wunderkind genius out of thousands. Then, they wonder why they can't find the exact person they're looking for to solve the problem they're filling the role for.

In reality, job postings should be incredibly specific, with specificity rising as the role requires more experience and problem solving. You'll get less applicants (or will be able to clearly screen out the people who don't meet the specific requirements) but you'll get ones that actually match what you are looking for and can actually solve the problem your company is trying to solve with filling the role. Then the conversation/interview is much more important and both sides feel like they have some "stakes in the game".

They need to hold an actual primary.

No, presidents can kind of claim national emergencies all the time. Usually they're used for sanctions, but they can also be for economic or security reasons (security being interpreted as times of war and in a very broad sense).

What's kind of fascinating is the way they've introduced things like the Major Questions Doctrine (MQD), which asserted the importance (really, necessity, in their view) of Congress's explicit delegation powers, as a way to curtail agency actions. But then faced with something like this EO, they seem quite obviously faced with something that runs up against the fact the Congress gave explicit statutes for how and what they should do. As far as I'm aware, the statues creating these agencies don't explicitly give the president this power...which raises a clear MQD consistency issue for the supreme court.

I have never had that happen before with my kindle paper-white. I've never connected it to the internet; everything is moved over to it via usb. I convert everything to mobi files.

Have you looked at the same file in Calibre? Mobi files are usually fine, but some Gutenberg ebooks have bizarre formatting when you open them on a kindle/ereader.

Providing a socialized system with adequate funding requires elected officials and voters to have appropriate and matched priorities. Voters, regardless of party in Canada for example, generally all agree that the socialized healthcare system needs more funding and to be a higher priority. I understand that when you remove party affiliation from the prompt a majority of Americans are also generally in favor of socialized healthcare and would like to see it expanded.

Critics of socialized healthcare often point at things like waiting too long for specialists, or understaffed hospitals, presenting them as inherent to socialized medicine itself when it's more often the product of elected officials who simply don't think socialized healthcare deserves adequate funding, or are against the idea of socialized healthcare entirely. Politicians will often piss in your cup and insist to you it's champagne.

There is, of course, the economic arguments around public vs. private health-care systems; but there are also the philosophical, moral, and ethical, arguments regardless of economics. Some things are expensive and yet we still understand they are a good and humane thing to do.

> Is this new wave of criticism about AI/AGI valid? We will only really know in retrospect.

All of the focus on AGI is a distraction. I think it's important for a state to declare it's intent with a technology. The alternative is arguing the idea that technology advances autonomously, independent of human interactions, values, or ideas, which is, in my opinion, an incredibly naïve notion. I would rather have a state say "we won't use this technology for evil" than a state that says nothing at all and simply allows the businesses to develop in any direction their greed leads them.

It's entirely valid to critique the uses of a technology, because "AI" (the goalpost shifting for marketing purposes to make that name apply to chatbots is a stretch honestly) is a technology like any other, like a landmine, like a synthetic virus, etc. In the same way, it's valid to criticize an actor for purposely hiding their intentions with a technology.

The author is indeed talking about non-fiction books, but, more specifically, a genre of books that I call "airport books". These are mass-market self-help, HBR fanfic, blogposts, that are bound and sold as books.

There's a whole higher echelon of non-fiction books that are more like academic books targeting a learned mass culture. These are often academic books with all or most of the footnotes and citations shaved off. Or they're just incredibly well written non-fiction storytelling, like the books of David McCullough, to give one example. Another: the essays by Mark Grief (even his one academic monograph is a stellar read by the standards of academic writing).

> Because we have too many books already, and publishing as a status play pollutes the information environment.

Tbh, this writer seems to not realize how much garbage was published in the past. Self-help "slop" has been a perennial catalogue filler for decades, if not centuries. The "too many books" argument runs into, I believe, an unspoken desire by the writer. Eventually you begin to notice what's worth reading and what isn't. You begin to trust certain publishers and writers over others. You begin to cultivate your own tastes and filter. Sometimes, you also just want a syllabus that lays out the "major works" in a field for you. Sometimes you want to find that out for yourself. Which is all to say, this writer seems to be asking for only something like Wikipedia or fiction, with non-fiction books dissolved and absorbed into the former. But one of the best parts of non-fiction writing is the author's point of view, their personality, their voice.

The extract looks great, I'll have to pick up the 3 books he mentions --- I love Armstrong.

One thing that always amazed me about these jazz performers was how much they toured, even at the peak of their popularity. They went everywhere. A couple years ago I sat down with my grandfather when his health was fading and asked him to tell me his life-story, recording it for my father so that he would always have a record of his father's voice. My grandfather grew up in a middle of nowhere Canadian town, but it did have a pavilion in its town park. I just about lost it when my grandpa casually mentioned that he'd seen Armstrong play there 4 times(!) over the years. Nowadays, you'd be lucky if any band or act came to play in that town. But Armstong and his band came.

The little blue pill is probably in MyFitnessPal if one really wants to track all their macros.

Counting works for people because it quantifies their food intake. For many people, that's an effective way to overcome a learned idea that portions should be huge, or that feeling hungry has to be addressed immediately, or that feeling "full" has to be constant. It's not perfect, and I don't recommend it to people with an ED history; however, after about a month or 2 of doing it, it can really change how you look at your meals, and snacking in particular. I don't obsess over it.

> - sauces you make yourself?

I don't count them. I keep my sauces simple and use them sparingly. I'm not trying to get down to sub-10% bf.

> - different cooking time in one receive : oignons going first, tomato sauce in the middle and parsley at the end (but still cook a bit with residual heat)

I count them raw, or if my tracker has them, count them as cooked. I don't care about them being super accurate.

> - Leftovers nutrients decrease with time

I don't care. The calorie counts are basically just estimates anyway. It's less a science than a mental game to control your ballpark calories in.

> - counting how much you take of a meal shared with others, especially when you serves yourself multiple time

If I'm making the meal, I count for the whole meal, then estimate for the share. See above for rationale (I don't care that much.) If my friend has cooked for me, I don't care at all, and just try to eat a "reasonable" portion.

> - different species/cultivation methods like the rustic small and dense cucumber from your neighbor and the spongy one from the supermarket in January

The differences are probably not going to matter all that much. By weight, a cucumber is a cucumber is a cucumber; I'm not trying to be perfect, just get a general sense of calories.

> Like such cannot be enforced for example against foreign radio stations or print publications.

If the law and acts calling for their divestiture were deemed "content neutral" then they could. But an app, with algorithmic profiling, delivery, and data capture, for the purposes of modeling and influence, is not the same as a radio station or a publication, so it would probably not be easy or even possible to the SC's standards to write a content neutral law in that way. But they have deemed that with apps like TikTok, when done so carefully, it is possible and divestiture can be enforced neutral of content.

We don't need to stick our head in the sand and act like TikTok is the same as a print publication.

The SC's decision, and Gorsuch's opinion in particular, is carefully written to not fundamentally rewrite the First Amendment, I'd urge you to read it.

> But why didn't Supreme Court find the first ammendment arguments compelling? As per first ammendment it is legal and protected to print/distribute/disseminate even enemy propaganda in the USA.

> Even at the height of cold war for example Soviet Publications were legal to publish, print and distribute in the USA.

That was explicitly brought up in oral arguments by the court, and the response by the US Gov was: "The act is written to be content neutral."

The court's opinion explains that they agree the law is "appropriately tailored" to remain content neutral. Whether it's "enemy propaganda" or not is, in their view, irrelevant to the application of the law. TikTok can exist in America, using TikTok is not banned, the owner just can't be a deemed "foreign adversary", which there is a history of enforcement (to some degree).

From the oral arguments it was immediately obvious that Alito and Thomas had already decided their opinion --- as had the other judges, frankly. They were very skeptical of the ByteDance/petitioner's argument. The Act at issue was written in a very specific way to neuter a lot of their points. Elizabeth Prelogar, representing the US Government, is also an extremely good SC lawyer in oral arguments. A Per Curiam decision is not surprising at all, most people who follow the court were expecting it.

Aside from very occasional drops into printing, I exclusively write in cursive. Once you get proficient you can write very fast with cursive -- regardless of the pen/pencil. Can other people read my writing? Yes, if I slow down. But if it's notes for me, then I can go easily double the speed I have with printing and it feels as "seamless" as touch typing.

America hasn't really taken public education seriously in a long time. That's funding for schools, serious academic standards, building more schools so class sizes stay reasonable, and insisting on having rules in place to make sure classes are not disrupted. People either just want to throw money at the problem or lower standards or make sure rich communities have good schools and poorer communities get what they "deserve" (ie. "you don't make enough/your house is not worth enough, so your school's quality will/should suck").

The way that civic pride, communities, and public education, were all tied together has withered away in the last 4-5 decades. Now, access to good, serious, education is a zero-sum game.

> My kids won't eat the healthy cereal so for me the number one reason is taste.

This is one of those things where "taste" is basically sweetness. I used to love cereal. Ate bowls of it all the time. I've been on a basic oatmeal with blueberries kick for the last couple years, though, and whenever I try cereals I used to like again I'm disgusted by how sweet they are. You really can only taste sweetness. Kids love that sweetness, though, and brands are extremely focused on marketing candy to children as "healthy" breakfast staples. Lots of kids think stuff tastes bad because it doesn't taste like candy.

The price of "organic" cereals is an issue though.

Gov of Canada, famously, has some of the most braindead slow hiring practices in the country. Their HR teams are incredibly bad at their jobs. It's genuinely astounding. Last I checked the time from application to starting your job could be anywhere from 9 to 18 months. Everyone, including the employees, know it, so everyone gets "Bridged In" through an internship or hires internally. The rules are totally different with internal postings and you can get hired in a week if you're a good candidate.

Most companies, if not nearly all of them, are just really bad at hiring above "entry-level" in general. The practice of pushing hiring through HR teams and recruiters often leads to the job posting being weird catch-all abstractions because a huge funnel brings in lots of resumes, which makes the HR teams look busy.

Really, postings should be astoundingly specific --- literally, "This is exactly what we are looking for and the problem we want to solve. Prove to us you can solve that problem." Generalist hiring teams are usually unable to get that specific, which is why personal references and recommendations are very valuable. The number of applicants you get should be a good sign that your posting is too general or just right. Positions above the junior level should have significantly less applicants. If not, then you can probably simply hire a junior level.

Don't worry, they'll fail upwards like many other executives who leave dumpster fires behind them.

Remember, though, conveniently, according to other executives, there's "only a limited number of people with the skills to be CEOs! So we have to pay them so much!"

That claim has a very robust history in philosophy of mind. Peter Hacker and M.R. Bennett, a philosopher and a neuroscientist respectively, cowrote Philosophical Foundations of Neuroscience[0]. There was also a fascinating response and discussion in a further book with Daniel Dennett and John Searle called Neuroscience and Philosophy[1]. Both books are excellent and have fascinating arguments and counter-arguments; you get very clear pictures of fundamentally different pictures of the human mind and the role and idea of neuroscience.

[0]: https://www.wiley.com/en-us/Philosophical+Foundations+of+Neu...

[1]: https://cup.columbia.edu/book/neuroscience-and-philosophy/97...

When you talk to neuroscientists and researchers in private you often find that they are far less confident than public personas, PR, articles, or science reporting, make them sound. A lot of their findings are really more like "huh, that's weird. We should look at this more." What seems like a ton of consensus at cruising altitude is actually much more divisive as you approach ground level. The more recent emergence of the idea that neuroscientists are a kind of "super scientist" of human behavior (all self-help books are now "neuroscience"-based now, for example) has also made them seem much more certain about certain things than they actually are.

My brother had a friend try this in university while studying for exams and, according to my brother, it basically made the guy lose his mind. Seems like a roll of the dice on whether it works for people or not.