klagermkii

> "the state" is just shorthand we use for "other people in my community"

It's a very different abstraction layer, in the same way as individual cells vs the entity that is you. The entity that comes together from all those "other people in my community" and its priorities are different to the individual desires.

> Does that actually mitigate antisocial usecases? No? Then it's not what I'm talking about :)

Maybe it does? Maybe someone is alive on the road today because they read the message and changed their behaviour. I'm giving an example of something where this liability mindset has created a world where manufacturers are no longer prioritising the desires of their users in order to appease a sense of harm-reduction. And you weren't limiting it to LLMs you were applying it to all sorts of tools.

I think that "reverse engineering" as the OP was talking about is one of those things where maybe 1/10000 uses could actually be harmful. This is not even a high-risk request such as to produce a weapon of some kind where maybe your "antisocial usecases" could be applied.

I don't think that "dystopian" necessarily goes far enough, this would be one of the rare times where I would call it a fascist mentality - the idea that everything's primary allegiance is to the state and the goals of the state rather than those of the customer or the user.

I want a default that has people empowered, rather than something where it's just another performative smokescreen caused by overzealous product liability. I'll thank you and your kind for needing to distractedly tap the "Agree" button on my car's infotainment every time I start it to confirm that I will pay attention to the road.

I suspect that BASIC may have got a bad reputation in the same way as PHP or JavaScript did, where the accessibility of the language and infrastructure around it allows people who just want to achieve a specific goal to easily participate.

That influx of people with the attitude of "I don't care how computers work, I just want to know enough to solve my problem" shifts the stereotypes around those language users and may erroneously put the fault of it onto the language itself. It certainly feels that way during hiring, where it seems like developers of vastly differing skill or aptitude tend to cluster heavily around certain "friendly" languages.

This list really limits itself in terms of Xilinx price-to-performance by disallowing anything with a SOM. You can get a combined SOM + Carrier board with https://www.xilinx.com/products/som/kria/kr260-robotics-star... that's going to crush most things there despite being relatively affordable.

> I don't really understand why anyone who claims to be a proponent of a free market economy has an issue with a private corporation deciding what type of content they want to broadcast.

I don't think this is some irreconcilable gotcha. I support the free market as a tool when it delivers on the benefits that it can provide. Those are increasing choice and decreasing costs through increased competition and commoditization. If problems show up I'm happy to have legislation introduced to tackle those, such as not allowing food with known toxins to be sold.

It's like any tool. I support cars when they're used to deliver on the benefits that they can provide; getting people from point A to point B, and giving them the freedom to move between arbitrary locations. When they're used to run pedestrians over then I don't support that usage, and I will support legislation that limits the use of the tool in that manner.

Likewise if the free market is used as a way to reduce the availability of content, I can be against that while still supporting it as a guiding concept.

Protest needs to be disruptive or inconvenient in some way to draw any kind of attention or have an impact. Otherwise the complaints can be entirely ignored, but that often seems to be the goal of corporate-sanctioned protest; get everyone who is angry to channel their energy into something time consuming but utterly ineffective.

Categorizing a publicly organised protest tactic as a "cartel" seems like a stretch too, especially when on the other side we're looking at a company in a market with maybe three or four major players? If one was casting an eye for cartel-ish behaviour one should probably start with the major cereal companies, before going after a bunch of randos on Reddit.

With TP-Link you can run the Omada controller for their EAP line on a local device (I have it running on a Pi4).

I think many businesses will be happy with this change. Currently you have to run an instance of WhatsApp in a container that connects to the WA servers and provides the API that you then use. But Facebook doesn't let random businesses run them directly, so instead you have to use accredited third-party providers who manages the container and gives you their own API to work with. So ultimately you still have this third-party who has access to the message flow.

This sounds like it offers the possibility of cutting out that middle-man and will potentially provide an easier API and onboarding process.

Laws don't matter without the ability to enforce them.

Apple and Google reap the benefits of forced centralised control, but that is what allows those countries to very easily enforce these kinds of laws.

Maybe, as with the opposition to the Citizens United ruling, rights that are given to people should not automatically apply to companies.

Did it take 50-60 hours in ancient times to gather enough firewood to burn a fire for an hour, or does this limit the definition of artificial light to some kind of higher quality oil lamp?

Projected Electoral College votes could still be based on post-certified results from the states. The projection they're talking about might be the projection of who the electors would vote for (so ignoring faithless electors who could be bribed), rather than the projection of who the electors would be.

I think it's difficult to approach a problem with a Depth-first Search mentality without using "Strong Opinions, Weakly Held". If one goes in with "weak opinions" it's easy to find oneself constantly backtracking and checking the other nodes early on in the chain of assumptions and doing a mental Breadth-first Search instead.

That's not to say that it's the right approach for every situation, but for problems that will have a lot of dependent unresolved assumptions "Strong Opinions, Weakly Held" is sometimes necessary to maintain focus to break through the problem.

From an individual perspective I don't think there should be any doubt that solving death is a fantastic goal. It's the threat that is poses to the system, threats to which we have no better tool than death.

Old age and death is still the number one tool for solving: - empires and tyrants

- outdated societal opinions and prejudices (racism/sexism/etc)

- locked in privilege and wealth

- ossification of social roles

- stagnation within fields and industry ("Science progresses one funeral at a time")

We have no truly effective tools for these problems, except wait for people to die. I'd be much more supportive of ending aging if we had anything that worked.

This thing of misleading people on the details so that they make the Correct Decision in the short term seems very dangerous.

I know in tech there's a tendency to do something similar when faced with clueless management, feeding just the information you know they need to hear to get them to make the right choice and think they came up with it themselves. Really don't like this applied on a society level though.

This kind of statement always comes with the underlying assumption that Apple is where it is without any kind of artificial crutch, and likewise the developers should suck it up and show their own rugged individualism in dealing with the problem.

In reality a company like Apple depend on tomes of rules and government enforcement to defend its fortune. Rules that are themselves an artificial construct that it and its peers have championed and lobbied for. Rules that give legal backing and physical force to its contracts, relationships with suppliers, IP, that together allow an artificially restricted system like the App Store to even exist.

To suggest that individuals then cannot petition to have some additional restrictions put in to provide some balance is disingenuous and will only maintain and encourage systems like this in the future.

Shouldn't one at least start by giving tough punishments to officials i.e. years in jail etc, before reaching for the more monstrous punishments? I worry that the extreme suggestions distracts people enough that the focus instead becomes on the extreme, rather than punishing the officials. Then, like US white collar criminals, they walk away with no punishment.

I think you see point 3 come through in the discussions talking about privilege and lived experience.

It's a natural step after point 1 or 2 where the dominant group rebuts with "well it works for me, so it should work for you", and the minority group provides their theories as to what results in them having a different outcome.

This seems to just be a set of general steps for the dominant culture to downplay dissenters or individuals for whom the system isn't working. It doesn't tell you anything about if the system is actually working or not, or if those individuals are right or wrong. Anyone who disagrees with the system will probably go through similar feelings (maybe not point 4).

You could put yourself in the position of someone who grew up poor and disillusioned as part of a visible minority in a US city, or a Hong Kong protestor, or almost any other anti-hedgemony protestor and they'd check the first three boxes. Are they wrong or is the system wrong? Nothing in this list helps determine that.

A moral framework is only useful if it can be adhered to. If we define "good" as a standard that can't be maintained it ceases to be a valuable definition.

Sometimes "whatabouism" is just trying to make sure that the standard being demanded is based in reality and can be maintained by others who find themselves in the same position.

The hot bag thing is a pain and has so many different reasons. I've been caught out with it in the move from a 2012 rMBP to a 2019 16", where on the old one if I was connected to WiFi/tethered and I had SSH sessions open in Terminal they would just die when I put the laptop to sleep. On this new one it will keep Dark Waking the machine in my bag in order to prevent my SSH connection from closing.

I also thought that, as I do have a 32" 4K DisplayPort monitor with plenty of scaling options presented in macOS (and even more options if you hold Alt/Option while clicking the "Scaled" radio button).

On other monitors with macOS I have sometimes not been given scaling options. I'm not entirely sure what the rules are about when or when macOS doesn't show scaling, so maybe there is something with the laptop model/Thunderbolt -> HDMI adapter/monitor that is catching him out.

Aside from that I definitely agree that 32" is not for everyone and I'm not sure if I would buy it again.

Yes, I'm just using tech as an example. It still requires them to be excellent in any one field and then move into another field on the basis of that excellence, but then fail to have the excellence carry over to the new and different discipline.

None of these people show some kind of original standout excellence in a different field that was lost in their transition to Mozilla leadership roles.

I would think the Peter Principle would be better represented if there was someone who was a star on the technical side, but messed up as the CEO in a role they couldn't handle. i.e. if Brendan Eich was CEO and this happened it would be a Peter Principle moment.

All these senior leadership people seem to be straight from the management track. Doesn't seem like they showed their excellence in another discipline and were then misplaced as CEO.

> In fact I suspect that a sense of frustrated talent is what drives some people to become haters. They're not just saying "It's unfair that so-and-so is famous," but "It's unfair that so-and-so is famous, and not me."

> Could a hater be cured if they achieved something impressive? My guess is that it's a moot point, because they never will. I've been able to observe for long enough that I'm fairly confident the pattern works both ways: not only do people who do great work never become haters, haters never do great work.

Listening to that old Steve Jobs interview where he talks about Microsoft (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJWWtV1w5fw) I think there elements there of what Paul would be calling a "hater". A view that there's something a bit wrong with the world when particular non-ideal characteristics are rewarded.

It sounds as if Paul has enough of his own personal issues with haters that he wants to put them all into an irredeemable bucket.

That's such an obnoxiously passive-aggressive response from the CEO. Bit of a red flag for the company culture.

2017: https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/business/technology/arm-no-...

Yeah, MIPS was nice with allowing custom instructions to be added to their cores, but with the relatively recent Arm licensing change for Armv8-M that allows something similar I wonder if more will just switch to Arm.

https://hackaday.com/2019/10/23/arm-allows-custom-instructio...

The "rule of law" isn't about individual citizens submitting to the system.

It's about the people in power following a standardised process based on the crime that was supposedly committed, and being applied uniformly, vs the "rule of man" where things are handled on an adhoc manner based on who's in power and who's being charged.

The system can be breaching the "rule of law", not the individuals targeted by that system.

I think the aim of better funding models is to allow more specialised content that is of higher value to people with an interest in that niche to be viable. In theory that allows more creators that are focused on a niche to thrive, rather than just creators that have generically good production standards and reach a wide but non-committed audience who just have to provide "eyeballs".

Therefore I would assume there isn't homogenous enthusiasm from all content makers for new funding models. Niche providers want it while mainstream ones are happier with the status quo.