slazien

It is, I agree. My point is that the proportionality of consequences is not there. We seem to be good at criminalizing discrete, individual financial acts, but not systemic corporate decisions that cause diffuse harm. That's even when the aggregate harm is arguably far greater.

Is that the only factor? Is insider trading objective? (hint: it's not, read the law). It's objective only when we can attribute a quantitative measure to it? What's the relative "value" of $1M profit from insider trading vs a single child's destroyed psyche? How much value could that child have contributed to the society had it not been for the harm done to it? Is there really much subjectiveness in terms of the harm done to those kids?

All that to say: I don't think "objectivity" should be the (main) factor resulting in existence of adequate punishment.

Why do we have prison sentences for insider trading, which is arguably (much) less harmful to the society, and not for this?

This feels like a pretty negative take on what seems like impactful technology that is not going away, and will (and already has had) big impacts on how people work and build. Do you completely reject the idea of using them, ever? Do they have absolutely 0 utility for you?

https://www.jmail.world/about

"We compiled these Epstein estate emails from the House Oversight Committee release by converting the PDFs to structured text with an LLM"

and:

"Data Sources

    Gmail emails: House Oversight Committee
    Yahoo emails: DDoSecrets (brought to us by Drop Site News)

Technology

Document parsing and extraction powered by reducto"

While this might be a marketing tactic in such situations, in this case it's a press release, which is a format where it's common to speak about "yourself" in 3rd person. Look at their other press releases.

For anyone interested in incorporating wild plants into their cuisine (including foraging, preparation, storage, recipes, etc.), I cannot recommend Samuel Thayer's books highly enough: https://www.foragersharvest.com/sams-books.html

At this point, he is an authority in the foraging community, and his books are well-written. Got all of them in my bookshelf.

Ah, good catch!

OpenAI didn't provide the right type of evidence, so the trademark request got dismissed: https://tsdr.uspto.gov/documentviewer?caseId=sn97733259&docI... (probably until they try again).

Apparently, they... didn't even pay the petition fee

Related: me and my colleagues at Georgia Tech created something similar for multiple types of Points of Interest and developed and accessibility index. Our methodology was a bit different though: https://arxiv.org/abs/2212.06954

I wonder how widespread this phenomenon actually is, anyone has similar stories to share?