halestock

Hm, that's more like digitally signing an image. I'm thinking about something like e.g. encoding/encrypting depth information from multiple images to create a composite that can't be duplicated without the source images.

This approach makes me wonder if the future is actually going to move towards visual cryptography.

Meanwhile, https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/08/fcc-abolishes-gi...

Pretty impressive to introduce 1400 CVEs in a project that's only ~7 months old.

Brand new account posting ai slop is my guess

A lot of engineer types forget that the law is not code, and reductionist arguments almost never actually work in practice because it's a human interpreting the law.

Just wait until you hear about the underwater turbine that can do far more than generate electricity!

https://energiesmedia.com/texas-turbine-under-water-more-tha...

I also took the tour this year and I came away with the impression that he would have fit right in with today's "genius" entrepreneurs and CEOs for all the reasons you stated. He certainly had great ideas and was an excellent designer, but he was belligerent and bull headed and owes a lot of his success to luck and the people who surrounded him.

But this isn't about banning those things, it's about banning endless scrolling.

edit: I get that you're trying to provide counterexamples to be able to say "here's something that _could_ be construed as coercive/addictive design, so the law is going to end up banning those" - but that's the whole reason we have courts to interpret these laws. If you can reasonably conclude that a 100ms delay is helpful for user input - then it's probably not addictive design! That's the whole reason courts exist, because there is always going to be ambiguity; laws are not algorithms.

But we're not talking about banning addictive algorithms, we're talking about banning endless scrolling. You're trying to straw man by bringing in completely different examples.

Edit: rereading the article, they want to ban "psychologically exploitative features intended to maximize engagement that foreseeably lead to compulsive use." It seems like it's pretty straightforward to apply that logic to your hypotheticals.

Ok, but you're just talking about a completely different law. How is that comparable to what's being proposed?

Is your argument that unless we can make a law that is perfect and covers every conceivable use case of coercive design, then we shouldn't bother to make a law that covers any of them?

I'll bite, how's Seattle doing that?

This is all depressing but I had to laugh at "Tolliver Chevrolet"

Huh? Just because you're not going to become the next graphics programming legend you think it's not worth getting into graphics programming at all?

Well, call me when any of those things happen and I'll happily eat crow.

Presumably there would be a legal definition of what constitutes public transport, and I would expect it wouldn't include those. But I'm neither swiss nor do I speak any swiss languages so hell if I could find it.

Because it's pretty evident that all these data centers are primarily intended to eliminate jobs and make more trillionaires and destroy democracy, and the positive stuff (like solving unsolved math problems) doesn't remotely justify that.

Hoo boy, welcome to the history of the United states.

Er, there is an excess of teachers because they are paid so poorly. Teaching (like nursing) is absolutely a labor of love and so they are heavily undervalued and underpaid in this country.

The WSJ's target audience is high income earners, so it's more about making a story that appeals to them.

I was being very roundabout, but my point is that AIs are still built, not grown.

I can't predict the outcome of an RNG but that doesn't mean it grows the numbers.

Huh, I wonder what happens when people stop making real music for AIs to train on, then.

What does that have to do with "power begets power"

Why don't unions seem to have that problem in pretty much all of Europe then?

Always?

Nothing I said has anything to do with homogeneity.

Because society functions a lot better when it has people in it who like each other.