junofan

It’s pretty clearly theft of services as generally defined in most places. It’s a hack in the same sense that rolling back your electric meter is a hack.

Feels like a just-so story. How to quantify “ambitious”? If the goal were flight, would jumping off cliffs with wings like birds be “ambitious”?

The most parsimonious explanation is either our models or methods (or both) are garbage. Something’s missing. The failure rate is insane, and writing it off as ambition or “biology is hard” rather than digging in does us no favors.

They don’t pay tax, right? Correct me if I’m wrong. It’s definitely a different (and public) conversation when things are claimed done for the public benefit and thus exempt from tax.

At least in the US tax-exempt status carries obligations.

I think you could be more charitable, as GP said “culture,” not “society.”

Apple alleges not only individual malfeasance, but also recruitment tactics like “show-and-tell” aimed at recruiting those willing to bring company secrets (and discriminating against those who would not).

This is enough to constitute a low-trust culture that self-perpetuates.

Surely given the size of China there are plenty of honorable people. And surely in the US there are many dishonorable people, as you’ve pointed out.

You get trustworthy people by trusting people. Generally when I was there there was a presumption of trust. Given how blatantly the defendants are alleged to have acted, that’s still the case.

They are white [1].

[1]: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21211671-1997-revisi...

I just asked Deepseek “tips for organizing politically in China” and hit the guardrail.

I but skimmed the model card on release, but my impression was that there may be an incentive for this expert panel to exaggerate as a form of job security. A lot of the challenges seemed to be of the form “would this allow somebody who isn’t me to do what I do professionally?”

Interesting. It would be easy to detect hate speech client-side too I’d imagine. My phone already listens for certain words.

It was a narrow miss. There was a time the crown wanted everyone farming cotton, but entrepreneurs pitched arbitrage instead.

Unfortunately you’d have no power to correct it. Even if such a thing were possible. I hope that changes.

You’re saying that they should take the money people pay to buy Xboxes and put it in T-bills instead of delivering Xboxes? What happens when people ask where the Xbox they ordered is?

Yep, those regulated marketing terms could use an update.

Regulators don’t make cures. There’s room to improve on that side of the system.

Especially as emerging approaches seem to be trending more systems-thinking-oriented, eg “this will strengthen your immune system to fight lots of diseases.”

Look up the Curley Effect for an explainer of what might be going on. I’m not Swedish but feel it may be worth examining given their rhetoric.

APA guidelines come with expiration dates [1]. 10 years is the maximum.

Churn is built in to the specialty. Read into that what you will.

[1]: https://www.apa.org/practice/guidelines/criteria?item=5

They have capital controls. Good luck moving yuan instead of Labubus.

It’s clearly AI-assisted.

I’m not. This is a serious comment.

Yes, that’s how I read your comment. There are narrow circumstances but no general principle. To generalize from narrow circumstances is simply misguided, so I commented.

That’s their mandate. It’s not pedantic.

I don’t follow your reasoning. It is foreign to me. You talk about winners, but this is clearly fraud.

[flagged]

> he is so sloppy with major decisions of life and death

To be clear, the FDA regulates marketing claims. “Is the label accurate?”

Major decisions about life and death are between the doctor and the patient, not the FDA.

It sounds like you’re taking an expansive view of this government agency’s mandate. People will push back on this at the ballot box, even if they can’t put it to words themselves.

What do you mean? I doubt a person can ask for the deletion of their tax records.

> Generally speaking, we deem various kinds of speech that harms people as NOT protected under the first amendment, and that kind of speech would not be protected here.

That is not a general principle. Consider the following: it is now illegal to say the word “election” because it would harm the President.

This is not the time to grind your axe against privatization and inequality.

> This reasonably sets a floor

I disagree wrt reasonableness. It’s just too big a leap. There are a lot of crimes, and not many land you on death row.

> State officials are eager to supplant Delaware as America’s corporate-law hub. In 2024 they established the Texas Business Court, presided over by expert judges capable of handling even the most complex disputes. Last year the state also introduced a measure to allow firms to prevent shareholders with a stake of less than 3% from suing them, and another to let only large shareholders put forward proxy proposals.

Interesting, hadn’t heard. I can’t wait to see where this goes.

Working with regulators is a terrible experience. I hope they can fix this as well.

There are more people not on employer-provided health insurance in the US than exist in France. How does your presumption work given that fact?

Fair, hoping for the best.