gwright

I don't think that is relevant to my comment. Whether the material is purchased, borrowed from a library, or legally reproduced under "fair use", I'm still asserting that I don't "owe" the creators any of my profit that I earn from taking advantage of what I learned.

If you study copyrighted material for four years at a university and then go on to earn money based on your education, do you owe something to the authors of your text books?

I'm not sure how we should treat LLMs with respect to publicly accessible but copyrighted material, but it seems clear to me that "profiting" from copyrighted material isn't a sufficient criteria to cause me to "owe something to the owner".

> I think the argument that humans are naturally willing to harm infants for personal gain is not at all true.

Who is making that argument? There isn't even agreement on the assertion of "harm" in the particular context of the original article. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, as they say.

> Late stage capitalism at its worst.

Any evidence that ignorance, greed, and opportunism is unique to "capitalism" or "late stage capitalism"?

Seems to me you are just making an observation about human nature, which manifests itself in any and all economic systems.

It is definitely impossible if we all give up on that principle. I'm not willing to give up.

I'll bite. Explain why you think Machiavellian tendencies is something that is particularly associated with "democracy" as opposed to other systems of government. (I'm ignoring the fact that the US is a constitutional republic and not a democracy.)

Anyone else tired of this Machiavellian approach that gives up on trying to persuade through rational and informed discussion?

I'd like to see some specifics in where you get the $5.7 trillion.

More specifically how was the problem of intermittent power solved? I'm not aware of any grid-scale solution to this problem unless you include vast amounts of hydro to provide power when there is no wind or no sun or both.

> Honestly, people just need to organize unions. That's the only effective counter to policy like this.

This seems like a non-sequitur to me. You seem to be suggesting that unions magically understand the best way to organize each and every workplace and that every employer should be required to organize its efforts according to the wisdom of "the union".

How about each company runs its business as it sees fit and each person decides on their own who they want to work for or perhaps just work for themselves? Systems that work thrive, systems that don't work wither away. Build in some social support for people to be able to move to new jobs or create new jobs/companies with as little friction as possible. For example:

ensure that substantial changes to a work arrangement must have a notice/grace period (no unforeseeable changes) * make health insurance independent from your employer * reduce occupational licensing regulations and require states to accept licenses from other states * simplify and streamline the creation and overhead of small/all companies (incorporation, taxes, reporting, etc.) * allow employers and employees/contractors to define the relationship that works for them without the ambiguous and irregularly enforced employee/contractor distinction in the tax code

> but as a simple matter of factual data it's been two decades since US Republicans could claim a slight edge on US Democrats in the popular vote (percentage of entire voting population) and four decades since they had any significant support.

That certainly comes across as you suggesting that Democrats have broader support. Intentional or not, I found your comment misleading by not incorporating the substantial size of independents.

This response seems to be spinning a narrative that Democrats have a significantly broader support in the US than Republicans, but I think that is somewhat misleading. Independents have stronger support than either of the major parties.

Here is some data going back to at least 1988: https://news.gallup.com/poll/388781/political-party-preferen...

I believe that is just the newer sets of locks. The older set doesn't have that recycling mechanism.

I'm not sure why this is being downvoted since there is considerable evidence that a new fissure might open very close to this area. The three eruptions in the last few years on the peninsula have not been far from Blue Lagoon.

Not my experience, nor my team's experience over almost 10 years of using this approach.

> why spend time on a ‘nice’ commit history in a (smallish) feature branch when you can squash merge later.

Several reasons:

    * facilitates much better code review discussions
    * enables use of git bisect to locate bugs
    * allows for informative commit messages associated with the changes
    * communicates clearly to future self about why changes were made

I think the competition argument is stronger when considering competition between states. What seems more towards the toxic side is when within a state some businesses get tax breaks and others don't based on lobbying effort and not based on some broader policy that is neutral towards specific businesses.

This suggest to me that we should have a more sensible taxing system not that we should build a tax system in which the government must observe all transactions.

Are you suggesting that police services should operate like a service for hire? It isn't clear to me if you think the victim should hire the police to investigate (and thus decide if their price is lower than re-purchasing the item) or if you think the police are only expected to investigate based on the value of the item.

In either case it doesn't sound like a sound way to operate a police department. It seems like a good way to incentivize vigilantism though.

Maybe we need to develop some iconography to annotate text and images that were produced/generated with AI/ML? Like we have U+2622 to indicate a radiation warning.

Similarly, U+2620 for poison, U+2623 for biological hazard, U+26A1 for electrical hazard or the generic U+26A0 for hazards.

(edited to replace characters with U+ notation)

I assume that means that every person accessing the pages also needs a github account? I don't mind a requirement for a github account for anyone contributing to the repo but I would like authenticated access for viewing the pages that doesn't require a Github account.

Apparently GDPR doesn't cover this case specifically but several enforcement authorities have issued some guidance. The only reasonable approach that I've seen is to maintain a log of deletion requests and ensure that if a backup is used to restore operational data that the deletion request is applied against the restored system.

Ironically, I've responded to deletion requests made by email in which the person did not have any records in our systems, until receiving the deletion request containing their name and email address.

https://verasafe.com/blog/do-i-need-to-erase-personal-data-f...

I'd be surprised to hear about anybody deleting records on backup systems (i.e., backups that exist for disaster recovery purposes). It would be pretty difficult to do that in a commercially viable way (but I'm open to hearing about some creative ideas).

Has anyone identified an easy/feasible way to add SSO authentication to github pages?

Could you share what markdown/git tooling you've identified?

My observation from this is that the process by which humans assemble and summarize information, at least at a somewhat high level, is pretty darn close to the way that LLMs do it. I think that falls apart when you want to talk about deeper learning, drawing inferences and so on but if you are just trying to pull together an executive summary on XYZ, an LLM with some fact checking gets you pretty far IMHO.

Well that certainly seems unexpected.

I'm a little rusty here, but I think you are talking about the fact that the exit status of the child process has to remain available until the parent process can reap it. Until that happens the child process is in the zombie state. You indicated that the creating thread needed to exit, but that seemed a bit too specific to me, I think that any thread can reap the exit status of a child process.

Related to this is the double-fork pattern to avoid zombie processes (and a couple other issues) when initiating a daemon process.

The typical way of dealing with "bad people" is to subject them to the criminal justice system (or vigilantism if the problem is bad enough and the criminal justice system is inadequate). This tends to reduce, but not eliminate, the misbehaving.

Improving the ability to track down and prosecute perpetrators tends to result in less anonymity/privacy, so that makes the problem challenging.

Thinking in the long/very-long term, we need to get more innovative with the underlying technology to mitigate abuse. I mentioned this effort https://named-data.net in another part of the thread.

I don't know about a "practical solution", but there are research efforts to think about new ways to build internets that mitigate some of these problems.

Here is one that I'm aware of: https://named-data.net

I was just trying to clarify some muddled discussion about different layers of the networking stack. The original comment about port names instead of port numbers didn't seem to be made with an understanding of the different layers.