kolektiv

No, but I am arguing that - from my perspective - the appropriate weight for those claims, fantastical as they are, would be zero consideration.

But we don't have to take all claims which may potentially be true one day equally seriously, or ascribe them equal weight (and thus, we are not required to act on all claims).

I actually do believe that it's quite possible that one day an artificial consciousness (for some value of "consciousness") could be created. I don't believe I've seen anything which makes me think it's going to spring, as an emergent property, from any of the current systems. I can't prove whether it will or won't; it is entirely subjective/intuitive, but then so are all of these claims.

So given that, how much time should I be required to spend debating what to do if the systems we currently have are unknowingly recreating slavery? Especially when all time spent has a cost as well as value, and we live in a society in which some people are only too willing to knowingly recreate (or perpetuate) slavery? Which one of those should seem more urgent? If I can only act on one of these, which really seems more defensible?

We don't wait for conclusive proof of the future before we act - we don't live in a world of definites, but we decide every second which things are probably important and which are not.

Also wild that they're willing to just put "Anti-Fascist" in there as the enemy - if you're anti-anti-fascist, that's kind of hiding in plain sight, as if they weren't already. Simply staggering to think that in such a short space of time a country can head off the rails quite so much, but it should be instructional - whenever you look at history, the collapse often happens slowly - and then all at once...

It's a common (and somewhat right-wing) trope, but it's not really true. Thousands of people aren't arrested for "mean comments" or similar. That isn't to say the UK has no problem with the balance of freedom of expression and regulation, but it is nothing like the impression you'd get from some sources. There are some high-profile cases which are commonly misrepresented to support these claims.

It's not even just music anymore. I love motor racing, but at the last meeting I went to, sat in the stands at an iconic first corner, tense with anticipation as the race started... Everyone around me sat there holding their phones up, filming it. I couldn't even see properly because of the forest of arms. People don't just... experience... something now.

What's even more ridiculous is that this wasn't a small race - it was filmed, and broadcast live. Their many, many camera angles and drone shots and everything else are superb, much better than your phone would be. It's on YouTube live and available years later. Why do this? It made me so sad.

Yeah, that's fair enough, and it is annoying that there is rarely a specific time set in regulation (or even case law which is broadly applicable). Most regulatory bodies will tend to say things like "as short as required/possible" for retention, which is clearly open to interpretation [0].

I would personally see 10 years as "a long time" in this kind of context (although that may be contextual depending on what your product does, obviously). If you can honestly claim/show good faith, that is usually acknowledged, but my point was rather how it would be seen out of the blue from an organisation that has been silent for 10 years (my personal first thought would be "why the hell have they still got my information?", but I am well aware that I'm not the average).

Genuinely, I don't mean to imply bad faith on your part, only to suggest the reactions it may receive, and how careful you should be with your messaging.

[0]: https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-topic/data-protection/r...

> For that I get chastizement on HN, figures.

I really wasn't trying to chastize, honestly it was intended as a friendly dollop of advice as someone who's dealt with this kind of thing. But since you have replied, I would say:

> Yes, there is a clearly valid business purpose under GDPR for retaining the email addresses of users who want to learn how to use your app better and opted in.

Relevance is likely to be seen as contextual. Someone wishing to do something a full decade ago is not likely to be seen as sufficient evidence to justify contacting them now in case they still wish to. That's a big chunk of the point about time-limiting data retention - the data gets less relevant and more problematic over time. I get that you're not trying to colour outside the lines here, but from the perspective of your users, and anyone looking at their potential complaints from a regulatory perspective, the window in which they reasonably consented to contact has closed (and probably some time ago).

The regulations are there, ostensibly, to protect consumers. They will be interpreted in that light. I can almost guarantee that if you sent an email to your downloader base 10 years after they last heard from you, being ignored will be the best case, and the worst will be reports to local regulators.

> over the last decade

Be aware that under various regulations, you're potentially already at risk of accusation in terms of unwarranted data retention. If you haven't got a good reason to have kept those email addresses, something like the GDPR might not interpret that favourably. While the GDPR doesn't specify actual time limits, they are expected to be proportionate. Financial records are generally 7 years unless otherwise legally required, so for a decade, you would be saying that these email addresses are more critical/valid than that. That may be the case, I don't know your business, but be careful if you don't want some very awkward questions asked. Just the hassle of having to deal with complaints you might get (and various regulators would take notice of 1 million instances) is likely to be more than it's worth for most.

The suggestion downthread to send a very clear "we still have your address, would you like to opt in to this newsletter, otherwise we'll remove it" is not a bad one, but even then, some people will object to you still having it at all.

I'm not entirely sure I can agree, although the premise is seductive in certain ways. We do lie to ourselves, but we also have meta-cognition - we can recognise our own processes of thought. Imperfect as it may be, we have feedback loops which we can choose to use, we have heuristics we can apply, we can consciously alter our behaviour in the presence of contextual inputs, and so on.

Being wrong is not the same as a hallucination. It's a natural step on a journey to being more right. This feels a bit like Andreesen proudly stating he avoids reflection - you can act like that, but the human brain doesn't have to. LLMs have no choice in the matter.

Very clearly put, and I'd only emphasise that without the final "enforcement" point of that, the other points become entirely irrelevant. While European regulators have imposed some significant sounding fines on prominent entities, they generally work out to be "less than the value gained by doing the thing in the first place" - or at least close enough to that for the entity to not consider it too negative/a future deterrent.

Unless you have some body which is a) serious about enforcement, b) sufficiently toothful to make a dent and c) not undermined by wider geopolitical posturing or economic neutering, you can have all of the regulation you might want and still end up in the same place. I'm not arguing that we shouldn't try and control this, but that we have some extremely large genies to stuff back into bottles along the way.

I think what leads to poor mental health is varied - poverty is definitely one cause, presumably one which is lessened in this case. I completely agree with you that there are more than two alternatives, but society seems unwilling/unable to consider any of the more radical.

You could frame those visitors to the Taj Mahal as victims, but that takes quite a narrow and short-term view of value to them. Would the Taj Mahal be as pleasant a place to visit if it were in an even more unequal and precarious society than it is? We all pay for things that don't directly benefit us through taxation (usually). The childless pay for schools, the car-less pay for roads, but we benefit from the society that having them creates. It seems hard to say that those visitors to the Taj Mahal would not benefit from being in a more prosperous and sustainable society.

Yup, there's a huge number of entirely physical/analogue ways that "many hands" could make the world a significantly nicer and more sustainable place. Public works, environmental works, having the capacity to do more than the bare minimum for the quality of the built environment - there is no shortage of things worth doing, just things worth doing profitably.

Are those people cutting the grass/operating the elevators happier/unhappier than they would be otherwise? (I don't know, but perhaps you do). You seem to be strongly implying that this is in some way "wrong" rather than a subjectively different view of the purpose of human existence - for what reason? (I'll ignore the glazier example as it seems quite extreme, and also comes with more obvious/specific "victims").

The end state is economic collapse/feudalism - quite desired by various current oligarchs.

No I'm with you. There's an honest and an intent to it which I've always loved - plus an intent to do more with less in terms of form. No finicky detail to hide tricky areas, no taking of advantage of material to distract the eye - it stands or falls on form and function alone. I get why some may not like it, but for me it's a pure form of architecture. It's the building equivalent of a Dieter Rams, or a mid-period Olivetti. Beautiful.

There's absolutely mismanagement, and politicians could do an awful lot to change this. Ironically, in the UK at least, most of the reasons why they don't are due to historic regulations designed to protect either the fossil fuel industry or an initially weak green energy industry, which no longer serves any purpose except to push both households and businesses into decline.

Scott Adams, creator of Dilbert, died earlier today.

I'm not sure they've been shown to be violent (unless you consider damage to property as violence- I know some do, but personally my "things are just things" stance limits violence to actions which impact people, who matter.

Broadly speaking though, I agree. What they did was criminal damage, undoubtedly, I have no problem arresting and prosecuting people for that. But I don't believe that it's terrorism, nor that it would have been so unpopular had it not been bloody embarrassing for the armed forces. Honestly, bolt cutters and some paint should not be grounding some of your air defence.

As I'm from - and in - the UK, let's have a look at this shall we? Both the tweet and the one to which it's responding...

> There are always technical bugs during the early phases of new technology, especially AI, and those issues are typically addressed quickly.

But this is precisely the point - they haven't been addressed quickly, they've been excused and generally ignored/used to troll. I believe they've now been moved behind a paywall, which is certainly one way to communicate how you feel about CSAM material.

> Let’s be clear: this is not about technical compliance. This is a political war against @elonmusk and free speech—nothing more.

Hardly - X has acted without any real consequence here for ages, despite turning into an absolute cesspit. MPs, Ministers, government departments - many are still using it despite everything. That aside, that a different country has slightly different views on free speech than (part of) your own country is not, in any way, a crime. Most nations have some speech which is restricted, at least in some circumstances, the US is no exception to this.

Now, onto the "inspiration"...

> The UK jails people for calling rapists "pigs."

Does it? Show me. Show me the case where that has happened. Our legal rulings are public.

> ...various other unhinged lunacy until...

> Starmer is just punishing a platform that won't bend the knee.

Do these people have the concept of irony surgically extracted? Everything Trump does is generally about punishing people that won't bend the knee/pay him/hand over a chunk of their Kingdom. "Country actually enforces own law" shouldn't really be a headline, but I guess for these people it is now...

In all seriousness, why is that a problem? Surely for embedded, the size and hardware usage of the resultant binary is what matters, not the size/number of tools used to build it? I get that a lot of people worry about supply chain attacks right now (and that's fine, everyone should be thinking about how to mitigate that problem/reduce it) - but going back to a world where code re-use is significantly less usable isn't likely to magically make everything better, that has trade-offs too - particularly if (as plenty of people clearly do) they want a modern dev experience for embedded hardware.

I've built an event-sourcing/stream framework on top of Fjall v3, and it's been a fantastic fit. It's a great building block for many systems where a more high-level storage system is either overkill or a poor match for the access patterns you actually have (in my case, sequential access to prefix-filtered data gets you 95% of the way to an efficient persistent stream). I started trying to layer things on top of PostgreSQL and similar, and the impedance mismatch and resultant unpleasant code (and performance!) made me look elsewhere.

First of all, this is not, in any meaningful sense "the government" - the UK has an independent judiciary interpreting laws defined by parliament, but this was not at the behest of government in any reasonable sense.

Secondly, this is not the blanket labelling of a place as "off-limits" - it's off-limits to a specific group of people who have prior examples of harassing people in that location. It's no different in concept to a restraining order. A restraining order does not make the relevant locations unavailable to everyone, only those to whom the order applies, and the bar for one being granted is not, generally, negligible.

There are genuinely concerning cases where the right to protest has been curtailed (or is trying to be) in the UK at the moment. Some of the laws proposed around restriction of protest are illiberal and overreaching. This is not one of those instances though.

Precisely this - it's the being there that was forbidden, not the act of praying - I'm not aware of any modern case where such a thing has been proscribed (at a guess, I would have said the last time was probably around the era of Cromwell, without checking).

Being there was forbidden for a specific group of people because they had a track record of harassing behaviour, much like a restraining order will likely be granted if someone has a track record of abusive behaviour towards another person. The praying thing is always mentioned as it makes it sound like some astonishing intervention in personal religion, while in reality, it's a complete red herring designed to rile people of a pre-existing viewpoint.

> How is standing by the road side saying and doing nothing harassing someone?

If you're standing by an abortion clinic, and you're a prominent anti-abortion campaigner, who has been known to harass people in the past, it was considered that your presence there is, in and of itself, intimidating to people who wish to access a legal service without undue interference. The ruling is not intended to prevent any of the things you mention, there are still plenty of ways that organisations can make those things generally known if they wish to, just not a particular group of people directly outside a clinic where they have a history of illegal behaviour.

In terms of misgendering Linehan, singular they has been around since the 14th century at the latest, and many style guides are more than happy with the usage for an individual where either gender is unknown, or where gender is considered irrelevant to the case in point. In this case, I would say the latter applies, but I am happy to acknowledge that Linehan identifies as "he" - significantly happier than he is to afford others similar courtesy.

In the scenario which you've outlined, where you say "hello" to me, having never spoken to me before? No, I don't think that's an offence, but more to the point, whether I did or not, the police are unlikely to. We don't operate in a system where the police simply take the word of anyone who reports a feeling, the police have a duty to assess whether a crime has likely occurred.

Ok, there's some context missing from those summaries though, no? In the first case it's not just "arrested for praying" it's "arrested for being in an exclusion zone specifically designated to try and stop you harassing people undertaking a lawful activity". They would have been arrested regardless of activity, it's effectively a restraining order and describing it as "for praying" is nonsense.

In the second case, it was not about misgendering someone - they were accused of a campaign of persistent harassment, something which the Daily Mail fails to mention except as a minor aside near the end of the article (not untypical of the Mail, naturally).

The Linehan case was debatable, and the approach taken probably wrong in some forms by the police (as admitted) but they were not arrested for simply voicing an opinion, but for behaviour which was sufficiently threatening and/or assaulting for the police to believe that a crime may have been committed and thus warrant further action.

There are cases of overreach, that applies outside of the speech issue as well - and indeed for any country with a reasonably effective policing system, it's never perfect. But these cases are not the simple slam-dunk that people will try and paint them as.

Probably the most high-profile case was the Lucy Connolly one, where she posted:

> "Mass deportation now, set fire to all the fucking hotels full of the bastards for all I care, while you’re at it take the treacherous government and politicians with them. I feel physically sick knowing what these families will now have to endure. If that makes me racist so be it”

For additional context (which was relevant during the prosecution and sentencing) this was posted during a time of riots and arson attacks centred on asylum accommodations, and very shortly following a highly publicised mass-murder of children which was (entirely wrongly) being blamed on asylum seekers.

She also pleaded guilty to the charged offence, rather than contesting the charge, for clarity. While not all cases will be quite like this, it is definitely not the case that - as some parties of the right have claimed - she is a free-speech martyr, a political prisoner, and so on.

That would require the police to believe that an offence is likely to have been committed. While I am more than ready to criticise the police for many, many things, I'm not sure they're likely to just take that at face value... (As you've specified first contact, etc., that seems likely - of course there could be situations where such a communication would be an offence, such as in the context of a restraining/exclusion order, etc., but not in this case).

True, although even those crimes (take common law assault) will still be heard in front of a magistrate - there's a process, there are processes for appealing, and it's not just some random police officer with the ability to jail you without process.

I agree that the UK has far too many laws that are more subjective than they ideally should be, but they do at least attach some level of observable and knowable process.

> a democratically-elected official can wield the power of the state against you and harm your interests just as much as a dictator can

Really? Can they? Because in a functioning democracy you generally have recourse to courts, tertiary adjudication of various forms, a (relatively) free press that you can try and interest in taking up your story, etc. In a brutal dictatorship you're likely to have none of those, and to go missing in the night if you try and suggest that you should.

It's absolutely right to oppose politicians you disagree with - that's what political engagement is all about! But beyond a certain level, hyperbole (and the general sense of "they're all the same") simply does serve to undermine not just democracy, but any rationale for political engagement vs. simple rioting.