greycol

Yes but crude is not really fungible. About 14% of US crude imports are effected which is about 8% of overall crude refining.

By the US not being reliant on imports I was saying that even with just local crude oil production the US can satisfy internal demand for petroleum products.

My wider point is that of course everyone knows that that's not how the economy really works and I was replying to nradov oversimplifying by pointing out that if it was that simple US petrol prices wouldn't have gone up as much as they did. Because even though it's only a few countries with specific refineries that are actually reliant on the straight being open to get their specific required flavour of crude it's everyone in the refined markets that are actually effected by the supply of that crude because it effects the supply those refined products.

There are refeniries dependent on the Persian Gulf region(PGR) but the majority of countries are dependent on the the general commodities market of downstream products. The US famously produces more oil than it uses and is not generally receiving fuel that's downstream of the PGR and yet if you look at the gas prices in the US you'll realise that it's not as simple as being reliant on fossil fuels from the PGR.

That's without taking into account other things like high grade helium or specific niche products.

Everyone knows a lot of the scumbag things Elon has done/does so it's not really worth talking about until he does something novel, people are still shedding light on the scumbag things the Sam has done so naturally it's being discussed more frequently as people share what they just learnt.

It would be fair to argue that in a just world Elon would suffer more consequences for being more of a scumbag than Sam but we all know justice doesn't apply to the rich in the US (occasionally this seems untrue but only because other rich people are pissed off at the rich person and they want them tarred and feathered).

Of course it's a classic trolley problem, plenty of people won't pull the leaver to move on to the track with 1 person even if it means the 5 people on the other track live. That doesn't mean that you can't argue about the morality of it in both directions it's why plenty of people believe that pulling that leaver is the correct option.

Obviously market tiering is part of it and you can play tricks with north and south bridge and pcie switches (which adds cost), but a ryzen board that advertises a pcie 5.0 x16 gpu slot and 5.0 x4 m2 slot only has 4 lanes left to work with from the cpu (i.e the cpus only have 24 usable lanes). Which while you can play with generations to get more lanes it's effectively still 16gb/s. That needs to cover network, extra m2 slots, usbs, as well as the extra PCIe slots.

I don't mind having to work within those physical limits but I do want to be able to search for boards that support N components. i.e 1x 4.0x8, 2x 3.0x8, 4x 5.0x4 . But the best you can search for is physical sizes of pcie slots and then dive into a spec sheet for each one, only to find that the 6 x16 slots only have 1.0x1 of bandwidth each.

The PCIe lanes are the worst. You have x16 slots that run x1, you need to check slots with m.2 to make sure an x8 doesn't become x4 if you insert storage. Wait if I plug something into the thunderbolt port my 10g network card runs at half speed? Obviously these are actual physical limitation from PCIe lane counts, but it makes it impossible to search. Just painfull.

Yes and if you live in the first world you want to fix the problems with the first world... You're looking around and saying McDonald's is cheaper than everywhere else why are we talking about it, others are looking at it and saying why is the cheaper option so much more expensive than it used to be.

That is precisely the problem, you look at the inflation and compare it to what you payed 5,10,20 years ago and your either getting less or paying more than that inflation. Average price inflation of a big mac in the US for the past 25 years is 4% versus average CPI inflation of 2.29%. So instead of increasing in price by 65% it increased 166%.

Personally I'm pissed at both. A large jump in requirements without warning is bad, if I want to avoid it I now need to take immediate less considered actions or get stuck with the consequences. Plenty of decent software actually lets you decide what plugins to install for added functionality, chrome actually has a extensions store that they could have put this crap in.

Yes it's also that it's AI and mostly that chrome is foisting off all the cost of that AI model to me and other users. Without warning and explaining what this model is, is my workplaces power cost going to be up 10% because of whatever they want to run it for? Who knows.

There'd be a lot less complaining if they'd actually warned and less still if they asked.

No he was saying he doesn't care that creating a backdoor for encryption means anyone can use that backdoor and that you must both follow the law by being secure but also follow the law by being insecure. People arguing that that creating encryption that both did and didn't have a backdoor was impossible got that little gem in return.

The people doing the lending can still make a profit. They get their interest payments and have a secured debt against the company. I.e. If interest and repayments until time of bankruptcy + liquidation of assets at bankruptcy is more than you'd get investing elsewhere at lower risk it's still a good investment. It's the other stakeholders (employees/community/unsecured debtors) that lose out.

Assuming it can't super hack all computer systems and cripple competing SI incubation to at least increase its lead time indefinetly.

The assumption would be that in the lead time it has the super intelligence at least takes a small lead and undermines any paths a later arriving super intelligence could take to interfere with it's goals, which naturally includes stopping competing SIs from becoming more powerful in a way that could undermine it.

So assuming the super intelligence has goals and work towards them it will be initially trying to solidify its own power, iterating on that small lead, assuming it's the smartest super intelligence[1], should be enough to win. The scary part is that assuming no guardrails [2] it's going to be as ruthless as possible in achieving those goals. That does not necessarily mean it will appear ruthless in achieving those goals, just as ruthless as it judges optimal.

1. Which being so smart one of it's chores would have been reinvestment in making itself smarter than competition and being smarter than its makers has a good chance of actuating those self-improvements.

2. In the internal balancing of goals sense not the don't feed the mogwai after midnight sense.

You're looking at that pre-covid time with rose tinted glasses. Half the reason sites like reddit or twitter offered free/open APIs was to ensure that the bots were being as efficient as possible rather than hammering the sites (The other half was altruistic but that good will is a very small line item to an MBA). Scrappers got so much better at just going to what's presented to humans because these kinds of APIs are no longer common so they had to. So now the lazy option is to no longer check if a site offers an API, rather than to check if it did and save time / not worry about maintenance by coding for an API.

Yeah but the situation used to be you don't need to jump through flaming hoops on android and you do need to jump through flaming hoops on ios for installing. Now it's you have to jump through X flaming hoops on android and X+Y on ios for installing. If I'm not going to jump through flaming hoops then I'm not installing so it doesn't matter what Y is in the equation and I'm not taking into account installing when comparing those devices, which mean ios might be a better proposition.

Alternatively if the difficulty of moving from 0->X is not negligible but moving from X->X+Y is then I may still be installing but I'm not considering the Y in the comparison then either. i.e. If I have to show my id to google once and apple twice it's the initial showing that is the turn off, or if it's the action of getting my credit card out in the 1st place rather than the cost difference that concerns me.

My understanding was that it was more that words can be concatenated into new words in German which is not so much a stereotype as more a misunderstanding of fact. I.e. You wouldn't think much about something like enjoyable-comuppence but schadenfreude looks more impressive without the hyphen.

Even assuming your incorrect framing of immigration as a privilege (You may as well say parents give their kids the privilege of going to play with their friends so grounding is not a punishment) consider the following.

It would be a privilege for me to give you a parachute for free. If you jump out of a plane with that privileged parachute, then it turns out to be a backpack with a sheet in it, what are your thoughts? Now you may not necessarily feel the word punishment fits in me giving you a backpack instead of a parachute, but you do see that I'd be the one in the wrong in that situation and that you are considerably worse off than before? I could wax lyrical about how thousands of people are in the air above the ground every day while jumping about, it doesn't change the fact that your position 3000ft in the air is a lot worse than those 2ft of the ground if you don't have the privilege of a free parachute you thought you had.

They are not if there aren't customers who are willing to pay more. For instance imagine a widget that lasts 1 year and is just under 1/2 the price of one that lasts 2 years. There may be high demand because it's the more economical option. If you raise the price so that it's 1/2 the price of the 2 year widget then demand collapses without effecting supply.

It's fair to think of secure boot in only the PC context but the model very much extends to phones. It seems ridiculous to me that to use a coupon for a big mac I have to compromise on what features my phone can run (either by turning on secure boot and limiting myself to stock os or limiting myself to the features and pricing of the 1 or 2 phones that allow re-locking).

The US 'forced' them to do this by agreeing in principal that Iran could charge that toll (along with 9 other points).

The question isn't whether the US can destroy Iran, it obviously could(as evil as that would be). The question is does the US want to pay the price of continuing the war more than the price of agreeing to those points, and would Iran pay the price required to fight back if it does not get the US to capitulate on those points.

I can tell you what will happen to any boat that doesn't pay the extortion (toll) and enters the straight. So realistically it doesn't matter if it's in breach of maritime norms, who's going to restart attacks on Iran to enforce those norms if the US capitulated on it?

It should be done that way because nominally the law is supposed to address a serious problem (supposedly protecting kids) as they justify that as the reason for an invasion of privacy and additional business regulations. Ignoring the reality of what the internet is and passing a law that clearly won't achieve it's stated goals but has serious drawbacks that will be enacted is not good governance, at best it's showboating at worst it's a deliberate step towards an Orwellian panopticon.

In most places it doesn't make a difference to the outcome of the legal process what it does do is give you a quicker simpler off ramp from the legal process (which reduces costs) and may stop some idiots even trying to sue in the first place.

"Do not iron clothes while on body" should not be required to not be found liable, but it does change the question in court from providing discovery for safety consideration, how comprehensive is the manual, how... and the costs involved with that to "Did the customer use the device in a way that was it was clearly labelled to not be used? Did any part of the product packaging or instructions contradict this warning? ...Dismissed".

Of course, because they're not proposing "apply our laws in our country" they are proposing "apply our laws in another country". If you want to enforce this law you need to do it the CCP way (punish your ISPs for alllowing it into the country and monitor your citizens for accessing it) because you don't have the jurisdiction to enforce it otherwise. Let's not forget how many UK criminals have made fun of Kim Jong Un's haircut and are getting away with it because the UK is such a lawless place that doesn't enforce DPRK law.

It's forcing all OSs to do something that only a few should be doing. The correct way to do this is for the interested parties to form an association that does four things.

1. Creates a protocol with desired signals (country and a variable list of whatever others i.e. age,state) that clients (including browsers) CAN choose to use and forward.

2. Create an api OSs CAN implement to inform clients of those signals and if they can be overidden in the client. (Possibly even create an OS or service to run on OSs that implements it, parents can choose to install specific OS or service)

3. A open source server for governments to specify common classes of content and what to do when a specific SIGNAL (from the protocol in 1) is recieved (Serve content to SIGNAL group/serve content to everyone/never serve content). And what to do if content isn't in a class it recognizes(Serve content/not serve content). Association could also be extend it's duties to coordinate a list of types of content.

4. Maintain an authoritative list of servers by country so that those hosting services can reach the servers hosted in 3. So that webservers can visit those servers to find what they can serve if they wish to apply the law for that jurisdiction.

Horrible because it does codify less freedom and censorship. The advantages are that for a jurisdiction liability can fall on the right actor.

If you run a website/app you worry only if your in a jurisdiction that mandates you use the protocol and can easily geoblock crazy countries by using that signal and choose if a jurisdiction you want to deal with is worth the effort of coding for or whether you want to ignore that countries laws.

If you are a user you can choose to install the API or use an OS that implements it or an OS that spoofs it with only the liability of your jurisdiction. If you are a parent you can use an OS(or install a service) to implement it on your kids accounts.

If your an OS developer you can add functionality if desired/appropriate.

If you are a country you can specify what signals you use/require and can specify required signals (i.e. US may request the State signal so it can decide if it needs other signals to evaluate whether to serve "Social Media" content (i.e. age in the case of state=california)).

Not perfect but actually keeps punishment/enforcement to appropriate jurisdiction and means you can actually gracefully avoid liability for sites in broken jurisdictions rather than either kowtowing or being in breach. Also means it can be implemented in client if you don't want it on your OS or want the convenience of not being asked age without the ridiculous other stuff.

Do you think we should mandate fridges should have locks if they can contain alcohol?

If you want that you get an OS that specifically supports child mode, you don't mandate all OSs default to having a child mode. The reason you don't do this is because when it's in place the default will be if you don't want to prove who you are you can't go anywhere on the internet except the most milquetoast sites (with no user created content) and the worst of the worst sites (that ignore these rules).

If I want to bash the government I don't want to have to choose between giving my id and going to terroristforum dot com.

Sure but the question is are they helping the U.S. that helped them. It's pretty clear that the Trump administration is a completely different beast than typical US administration. Look at things like its pro offensive war stance (see unofficial name change of DoD) or that it does not support Ukraine (see lack of funding/intelligence since Trump). Maybe Ukraine will think it's supporting the Americans that helped them and hurting the Americans that are pro or compromised by Russia by withholding aid and letting Trump wallow in what he's reaped.

I'll add that trump has made clear that U.S. administrations are not beholden to previous international policy decisions and so unless congress reins in the executive or trustworthy actors hold the mantle again other nations should treat the US with short term policy decisions in mind and not rely on long term reciprocation.

The US needs a organization doing the equivalent of the Nation Popular Vote Interstate Compact but for candidates and for fixing the US voting system. Get running politicians to sign up for if 60% of you are in office you'll table and vote for a specific already spelled out constitutional reform for more representative voting.

The goal being more than two parties in government so that democrats and republicans can fracture into more functional bodies (MAGA, RINOs, neo-liberal, progressive etc) and people can vote closer to their issues/beliefs and that multiple parties mean 1 party isn't running rushod over the other.

>one of the reasons

Also while there is an abundance of reasons of varying legitimacy they're both good examples because people often run in to them and are annoyed by the use of the words out of proportion to running into the actual legitimate reasons to be annoyed by the concept.

The number of people annoyed, by words like rizz or are angry that doctor can refer to a female, far out weigh the people legitimately trying to figure out if rizz is something they need to protect their kids from or getting delayed medical care because they needed to wait because they only feel comfortable with their own sex.

Naming is important because it intuits what we expect to do with a thing. The Department of Defense invading Greenland is more invocative to inquiry than the Department of War invading Greenland because that's what a department of war would do.

It's one of the reasons why people get annoyed at jargon or are pissed off about pronouns, because it highlights that they should be putting mental effort into understanding why they're current mental model doesn't fit. It's much easier to ignore and be comfortable if there's not glaring sirens saying you've got some learning to do.

Most of us can't (or won't) be aware of everything that should be important to us, having glaring context clues that we should take notice of something incongruous is important. It's also why the Trump media approach works so well it's basically a case of alarm fatigue as republicans who would normally side against any particular one of his actions don't listen because they agreed with some of the actions that democrats previously raised alarms about.

If the law "if you shoot an arrow with no mind to it's direction or destination existed you are guilty of negligence and liability of any damages" existed and then guns where invented you can argue either that the law needs to be updated or that case law will follow the spirit of the law and establish that it also applies to guns. If you are prescriptive and do not believe in the spirit of the law then a new law would have to cover the case of guns. Many would say there is a breakdown in the rule of law if it turned out people could just fire those guns willy nilly and the arrow law did not apply to them.

Similarly if there is a law that says the government can't build cameras everywhere to track you 24/7 without a warrant then post facto get a warrant to justify the prior tracking. Many people believe there is a breakdown in the rule of law when The government can pay someone else who has built cameras everywhere to track you 24/7 without a warrant then post facto get a warrant to justify the prior tracking.