20,536 karma · joined March 5, 2010
it's because he controls the board by being the majority voting shareholder.
This is what happens when the gov't decides that it is legal for share classes with different voting rights. It ensures that you can sell equity to obtain money, without actually giving up control of said company at all. In theory, buyers would discount the sold equity due to this, but in practice, they don't (esp. if they're retail buyers).
Tarp, and pitch it across the canal like how you might do a hammock - you just need two anchor points on each side (or 4, at most).
i dont think it will - they still have a chokehold on battery production (which implies dominance in the EV sector), and they also control the vast majority of all rare earths. The chinese gov't can subsidize chip research/development with these other sectors that are dominating.
The west is the one that need to watch out for their own economic dividend running out from the past century.
this position of privilege is what the OS vendor (google in this case) wants, because it spells profit.
I dont trust it.
The only trust i have is community trust. Piracy works on this trust, and it has worked for very long.
dont know about lower volume, but having the consumer pay the cost of the device fully (instead of subsidized by the later sale of games on the system) is better aligned with the interests of the consumer. You'd be less likely to get monopolistic device sellers signing exclusivity for games like the consoles of the past.
I want the device to be as good as it can be, rather than wanting the device for the exclusive game that it has.
I had imagined that remote work would induce a VR desktop work environment (as the killer app), but that hadnt taken off at all (mostly, i think, because it's difficult to type and do keyboard work in VR).
Gaming has not and will not be the killer app for VR imho. It needs to be business/money/work-related for it to actually gain a level of traction like how personal computing gained traction from mainframes.
The only verification you could do so far is GDPR-style data export, and also the adherence to GDPR regulations (and even those might get skirted if they aren't operating in europe).
The data that google collects are somewhat useless on their own, and is only valuable in aggregate with the millions of others they also collect. And for an individual, the leakage of this data (e.g., your advertising profile) is not detrimental unless the data is highly identifying (like your name, address, phone etc).
Therefore, people tend to simply ignore such leaks, and place zero value on the data. This difference in valuation is how google generates their money. The church, on the other hand, generates value from the gratitude of the confessors, and is therefore, aligned with the interest of the confessors.
the original question was that the LLM creates extinction level event for mankind in order to lower emissions. I'm sure that no matter how the LLMs lobby, they cannot successfully lobby for a law (which has to be enacted by a human) to allow murder to take place freely.
harassing a worker is not the way to fix the problem. The worker has no agency to affect the changes desired by the harasser. It's an issue with the gov't, and needs civic procedures to change.
This behaviour is the same as harassing hospitality staff for bad prices. Harassers would be considered borderline committing terrorism if they go further.
nvidia's money either comes from equity, or from debt. This means this money is "created" not from nothing, but from future commitments (ala, debt repayments, or promise of profits), which is not the same as what comes out of the Fed.
The Fed printing has no backing behind it - it is definitely inflationary if they do it. Investment from nvidia (or any other company) "creating money" may be productive enough to completely offset their inflationary effects - after all, the company investing demands returns from their investments, and so will only invest in things they expect to return much higher than the cost of interest (or cost of capital).
Therefore, you cannot compare Fed printing money to company investing money.
it's like saying our brain is just some chemical chain reactions. True, but also irrelevant.
so you would unplug a child who hasn't shown their potential yet, simply because they don't produce enough value at the moment to justify their food?
many teachers also taught many students over the course of history, and very few would eventually pay any compensation or even attribute their financial (or career) outcomes to the teachers.
What made model training different?
if one has a scientific mind, they will accept evidence which may be contrary to their personal views. If you dont, you cannot be said to have a scientific mind, let alone greatest.
> founding fathers of the United States
that may in fact, be the case, but chances are someone today of similar disposition would not be able to do the same.
but you haven't specified _exactly_ what harm to humans mean.
Would you consider the AI overlord to have harmed humans if they kept humans like we keep zoos today?
they are not fungible, unlike houses.
Also, if you could copy a house like you could copy digital goods (i would download a car), i am also going to claim that the "monopoly" on the house must also be shortened.
which is too long, and also too short - what about authors who wrote finished their book on their deathbed? Then their rights are shorter than someone young - an unfair discrimination.
That's why age should be irrelevant. Copyright is useful, and should be granted. However, current copyright grants last far too long - age plus some years beyond. Not to mention corporations lobbying to increase the length right as some copyrights for some works are about to enter public domain.
Therefore, copyright should be granted for a single period and end - like patents. 20 years seems to be a good middle ground, but i could hear arguments for slightly longer or shorter.
inheritance has nothing to do with copyright. Financial assets are not monopolies. Copyright is only a valuable asset because of the granted monopoly on copying/distribution.
Therefore, to reduce the value copyright has (as it currently does seem to have too much), reducing the granted terms should be sufficient. Like patents, a good 20 years seems like a sufficiently long time to recover cost of production, while letting people who are currently alive to produce derivatives of it afterwards.
So if you have no logging and such, you will have already failed regulatory reporting standards - just like you would fail an accounting audit if you have no paper trail of where your money went!
and why does this idea work for accounting audits, but not for security? As long as regulations for companies exist, they would necessarily follow it, and this would lead to reporting of security breaches just like companies would have to report their financials honestly.
there exists objective measure of security, which would be some sort of hacks/breaches per period. If customers cared about it (and i assume they do), they would choose companies that have less breaches over others with higher counts, normalized on cost differences.
Therefore, if companies didnt actually try to fix their security but instead just checked boxes, they would get breached more often, resulting in customer losses.
The only thing stopping this from actually occurring is the lack of mandatory regulatory reporting of it. So this is where gov't needs to step in and mandate disclosure etc.