eftychis

Two comments, directed to the majority of discussions:

a) It is ironic and indefensible how a company known for storing and gathering the world's information, engages directly in a massive evidence spoliation strategy in direct violation of the Duty to Preserve as outlined in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_37) That is deletes information.

“Google had a top-down corporate policy of ‘Don’t save anything that could possibly make us look bad,’” she said. “And that makes Google look bad. If they’ve got nothing to hide, people think, why are they acting like they do?”

b) I think and I hope we have not heard the end of this. There are worse things to do than being found as an individual to have violated anti-trust laws, I don't know say have actively setup and organized thousands of people to directly obstruct justice and destroy records to hide such actions: 18 USC §§1503, 1512(c)... (See https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1512)

"Judge James Donato of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, who presided over the Epic case, said that there was “an ingrained systemic culture of suppression of relevant evidence within Google” and that the company’s behavior was “a frontal assault on the fair administration of justice.” He added that after the trial, he was “going to get to the bottom” of who was responsible at Google for allowing this behavior."

You have the DoJ and three judges looking at you with your pants down. I hope this is the beginning honestly, otherwise what message does it send to every other entity out there? Imagine this happening on any interaction you have as a consumer or employee.

Yes, and it can actually backfire, by opening the floodgates to all communications. (As you lose all credibility after some point.) You are just betting nobody is going to keep digging.

There is a difference between keeping one's privacy and actively abusing and masquerading attorney client privilege to conceal criminal actions, knowing they are criminal actions. Because that is what Google was doing. They knew extremely well how they were violating the law and the implications.

And even worse, actively recruiting individuals to commit obstruction of justice and evidence spoliation (two distinct categories), so you as a company can thrive from crime a few more years.

The law is there to protect consumers.

Privacy law is there to protect everyone. Google could have easily said: I have the evidence, but I plead the fifth and not going to provide that evidence that you seek in discovery. The issue of course is in civil proceedings this means, the Court can instruct adverse inference or strike the pleadings -- that is a default judgment.

As the sibling comment noted, you were within the legal prescribed boundaries. The flag is automatic if something is off. No person (I think/in general/most countries) sits and counts days. The computer does.

In fact if they note they can not track exactly how many days you were in and out of the country that is a separate flag, that would likely in most jurisdiction lead to questioning.

(Source: friend had to pull his tickets and explain his travel path, when following unusual route via Schengen in between his entry/exit.)

I am not sure what you mean by "never used as is."

The Kelly criterion is an optimization of capital growth (its logarithm) method/guide. Not using it doesn't change its correctness.

But yes you need to know the advantage/the edge you have. Like with pricing methods eg for European options for Black Scholes you need to know the volatility and there is no way to know it, you estimate. This is where all the adjusting for bias and ML comes in.

Seconded. This could have been essentially anything and everything else bunched together. Or we have a compiler or debug symbol bug in our hands.

You mean the interest free loan they asked for? They are just waiting for it to double, so give it another 5 years. /s

Seriously, though, this is the standard Elon Musk tactic...

The whole point was to please future shareholders.

Let me rephrase my answer:

FTX made a good number in the double digits of investments and acquisitions. (https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/ftx-exchange/recent_...)

I believe Anthropic was the most acclaimed/highest current value, and they still have about 1/3 of the original 8% investment.

a) I am curious at what discount they sell Anthropic shares right now;

b) I am not sure what is the prognosis for the other shares FTX owns;

[ c) which creditors have preference to which money pot; usually there is a pyramid. Here it talks about consumers. (Specifically those owed less than $50k.) And there is a separate matter for shareholders who are looking at getting some of the seized by DoJ proceeds. (https://www.reuters.com/legal/crypto-exchange-ftxs-liquidati....)

]

Best way in general is to read the actual pleadings: news is not the best at giving a good idea what the court is actually ordering.

I am not sure. I don't think so but I haven't had time to read how the equities will get liquidated.

The statement is misleading. People are making 18% interest on the value of Bitcoin et al. at the value of 2022, which is less than $20k. Now that is $60k, back to the value levels of 2021. Thus, the only reason there is interest is that the cryptocurrencies found gained back their value, and the bankruptcy court gets to consider the values when the bankruptcy started in 2022, not current/before 2022 values.

Way way too low of a sentence.

The only upside here is it keeps crime bosses in a constant panic on when inevitably one of their underlings is going to pick the two year sentence exit door and bring everything down.

Hopefully, this will lead to a massive surge in indictments. If this seems to not work: throw these people to jail for long long times.

Curious if the plea deal estops them from raising defenses in the civil litigation. Usually that is a term (I think).

PS if you are one of those "Ellisons" or better a lowly henchman, now is your time to get out and save yourself.

No contract clause can protect you from a gross negligence tort.

(Or equivalent in one's respective civil law system.)

This might be the easiest gross negligence tort case to show and litigate-- still hard but if everyone starts the lawsuits they can not pull the contract to protect them. They will try of course and they will fail in most but the obvious cases.

What you can not sue them for is not forseeable damages -- e.g. I lost my dream job because the computer died during the interview. But ceasing operations of a company is generally fair game. And plaintiffs can argue that no reasonable person could forsee and mitigate against this disaster so the failure is not due to plaintiff's "fault" negligence.

I guess this site is using Linux or BSD and they had to venture outside their usual modus operandi to DMCA... /s

Not unheard of for some crimes, eg drugs or money laundering.

Securities fraud also essentially offers that: all money made out of the fraud and gains on that belong to the victims.

California's Unfair Competition framework also dictates essentially payment of the proceeds of the "unlawful activity" and taking actions to undo it.

Again this is already an existing relief for certain crimes or civil torts committed by individuals.

We just have not legislated to apply it to you know the other "persons," the companies.

Equitable and more specifically injunctive relief is the way out of this abuse of "crime is the cost of doing business" mentality. (That a lot of us raise here.)

What could that mean: Meta or whichever company breaks the law, loses ownership and rights to anything that is the result of the crime.

If it's a model, Meta can not use that or any other version of the model that utilized data illegally acquired. And that model becomes property of the victims.

Not a stupid question at all. I agree with you. But that is part of the style of VLDB -- the front matter has the publication date.

In any case this is part of the 2022-2023 volume: https://www.vldb.org/pvldb/volumes/16/

(in particular https://www.vldb.org/pvldb/vol16/FrontMatterVol16No11.pdf -- July 2023)

Adding to the sibling comments:

First: every human is per se doing that already. We have – to handwave – a "reasonable person" bar to separate violations versus results of learning and new innovation.

Second: You can be a holder of copyright and your creations result in copyrightable artifacts. Anything generated by the program has been held as uncopyrightable.

If it is vital to national security -- not disagreeing there -- it is paramount for everything and everyone to be investigated. You want the defense of NATO and the U.S. to be in the hands of people that can not deliver a plane?

Time for heads to drop and roll, and FBI (or any applicable agency, including DoD) to do a cleanup. That ideally should happen via the Courts too, but placing this under the rug is like inviting known enemies to utilize this weakness.

I respectfully disagree with the author's title choice.

My first impression is, of course, that the issue is there is no production Game or GUI framework around.

The author seems to complain mainly about the choices of frameworks and how bad or opinionated they are. I agree. Even Egui is too opinionated, but it makes sense on some level.

It is no problem to use bindings to some software written in C++. Rust was created to solve this exact problem: rewrite big projects that were written in C++, by slow mutation in Rust.

Honestly, I would add further that until the Unreal Engine uses Rust, we should not expect widespread Rust adoption. It will likely start with a company creating its own really custom game engine, the game becoming a bestseller, and it will spread iteratively over the years from there. Or maybe there will be a better option beyond Rust at that point.

This is the status quo: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/_zwKHgtQpc8 Let us be realistic.

Beyond that: One should see Rust as writing C with someone watching over you to remind you that you need to know the writer for each memory value. It picks up work off you. Or it should. If it doesn't, yes that is a problem, and we/you are doing it wrong.

But yes, if you are doing something that the borrow checker complains about, in other languages, either that semantic difference would have been hidden, or you would be paying for it later.

There, the author makes a point that he wants the code to work now. That is possible, and you can hotwire bad code in Rust, too. But I am sure that code is why we end up with games like Jedi Survivor.

There is no fundamental inability of Rust to do the things the author demands. If you want dynamic loading, use https://crates.io/crates/libloading (And you don't need to use the library). Do you want a global state? I will disagree with you, but take a look at, e.g., how the Dioxus project is doing it. Again I think that is always a terrible mistake, and people are thinking really of using an arena or a registry really.

This can't be stated enough.

They could not get away with it. Otherwise, they would. There is little to no competition in the segment. And that must change.

Yes. I was touching solely the likely unique characteristics of prostate cancer. Maybe I need to clarify, but that is what I got the comment I was replying to indicated.

I think this is unique to prostate cancer.

As it says the average age of men getting it is 67. From experience and from data I had seen, a lot of times, the surgeons simply believe the patient is too old to have any surgery. And when they die -- e.g. family I had -- they note down the cause of death as natural causes. When you are 80-90+, practically everything gets written as natural causes.

Finally, with prostate cancer, from what we know it is not a question if a man will have prostate cancer but if the man will die before prostate cancer becomes serious or appears. That is if we doubled the age of survival to 200 years I think we would expect virtually every male at that age to have gone through prostate cancer.

The line that stands out, down the line, that I think people miss in the comments:

"But the agency never paid for it [the server]."

Anecdotal story/take: The Aegean Airlines (Europe) business seat has much, much better food in a 20-minute flight than the comparable business 5-7-hour flight in the U.S. (And for a lower price, but I'm not sure that is important to the point.)

But the article does take a weird take. Also not sure how collusion is claimed here. I guess CAB counts as a forcing mechanism, but I am not sure one can argue collusion when it is the result of regulation. Was the regulation in bad faith?

Perhaps even before the dissolution.

But the science and IP become public and open or under a non-profit that is tasked with opening them. And for-profit segments are stripped of any exclusive rights that arose from the OpenAI.

The irony is that the dissolution, overseeing by third special referee or permanent injunction (e.g. the Musk suit) of OpenAI is the only ways OpenAI is "opening their AI."

Reading the messages:

This is a marketing step of course, no sane lawyer would agree to this. And that is because, I don't think they show what they think and want to show.

That at some point Elon had an opinion that a lot of money is needed or that OpenAI maybe had no future? That does not change the duty or obligations of a non-profit to the mission.

Also, it is clear some important information has been blacked out. And that critical conversation happened offline.

I don't think it will do Elon the image pressure they think it will. But if I was Microsoft... I would hedge my bets a lot...

This looks more and more as giving fuel to a dissolution action of OpenAI as a non-profit than anything else.

In my eyes this is a straw argument.

"[T]otally OK not to share the science." I think the reasonable average person would disagree with that. And, it would go against certain goal & financial transparency principles that the IRS demands to bestow the 501(c)3 designation.

(e.g. see here https://www.citizen.org/article/letter-to-california-attorne...)

Corporations definitely count as legal persons, with obligations and rights.

This gave us the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310, i case on their right to speech or place funds.

The mistake Google has done here is that it deploys and launches and uses to garner attention projects under it's name.

There is little to no, this is an experimental project by x team. It is this is a Google product.

If everything is a product and you don't support most or expect most to die, then you damage the collective product that is the Google brand. And as a result how your employees feel and are treated about experimenting.