That kind of "power" can turn on a dime. I'd be wary of it. In this case the mob learned they have influence when they work together. That doesn't mean they are loyal to Altman, rather that they are influential when united.
2,531 karma · joined October 13, 2016
Entanglement of big business and government is not new. Yes, we should be very concerned, but the solution is not to worship idols like business leaders or politicians. They will not solve that problem for us. You have to think carefully before handing more authority to individuals who've already been ascribed far more than is due.
> from a security guy just saying he doesnt care who runs the black box, is weird
One cannot select the "right" person to run that black box. We're all biased, flawed, etc. So yes, you should be concerned. But use that concern to drive your actions towards distributing authority– not centralizing it through more idol worship.
In response to your edit:
> I do not "worship" or "idolize" SA, and especially Thiel - I am terrified of them.
This is idol worship. You're ascribing a power to Altman and Thiel that they do not have. Bad behavior has consequences that are beyond what even the government can impose. If Altman or Thiel were to make a habit of targeting people, he or his adherents/descendants would eventually find themselves friendless in a house built on sand. Altman almost lost his job that way. The fact that consequences may play out slowly in some cases doesn't make it less true. Nobody can infinitely violate the golden rule without eventually facing consequences.
You should hope that they go back to school and study history. All of this has happened before, many times over.
The thread you linked is from 2020.
I see nothing there about "we will guarantee deposits of any amount over $250k."
The decision to guarantee SVB may wreak havoc on the financial system as banks feel comfortable continuing to make risky bets and thus attracting more customers, knowing that the fed will rescue the customer deposits that backed those bets.
Greg Becker isn't going to jail, and he isn't going to be financially ruined. There are thousands of people willing to fill the role of extracting money from the government. The trick is to not give into their attempts to bend the rules.
The lesson they learned is to shout global emergency when your regional bank can't meet withdrawals due to poorly managed finances.
Banks will not be more prudent, in the long run. They've just been taught that the government will protect depositors beyond federally insured limits. So now they can make riskier bets.
Why was it the VCs impacted by the SVB collapse, and not the wider banking world, who stood to lose more, who were loudest to make that claim?
https://jonathanhaidt.substack.com/p/social-media-mental-ill...
We are better off if we can argue the merits of both sides of issues. Trying to ram one answer down everyone's throats is not productive and does not make for good conversation.
Because Carmack kept developing new engines that were better. He also made it easy for people to build maps and add onto the game.
You can earn both money and followers by holding back key pieces but still sharing with the community.
Check out the book Masters of Doom.
And there are many Christians who regard support for abortion within the faith to have been influenced by atheism.
I just think it's an interesting question that has no easy answer. When does life begin? Clearly, the fetus is alive. Saying they "don't know" doesn't make sense to me because it's not like I remember my first year outside the womb either.
Haha, yes, we are not that far gone..
Are you trolling? What Federighi proposed before was scanning "for CSAM" on device [1]. Same angle.
> Doing it on device is probably preferable to on cloud and at worst no different.
Please elaborate. How is it better to force users to run software they don't want than to let them decide whether or not to have their photos scanned when they choose to upload them to the cloud?
Anyway it's a false dichotomy. Apple isn't doing on-device scanning, and now they've announced they won't do it in the cloud either.
See my comment here:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33903825
> None of us would know if Google was doing ad-hoc scans of particular users' photos at the behest of random LEOs.
Not your device, not your software. You should assume anything you upload unencrypted is scanned. This distinction was clearly voiced by the majority during the debacle of Apple's on-device scanning proposal. They basically said, "Scanning in the cloud is [choose one: fine, skeezy], but we draw the line at doing on-device scans. I don't want that software on my device."
Are you arguing in favor of on-device scanning? Or arguing against all scanning?
Perhaps easier, what do you think they should be doing?
The first amendment comes into play. The government cannot compel Apple to write software in a certain way, such as "write your encryption so you have keys that access all of users' data". That would be "compelled speech". So if the government provides Apple with a warrant, Apple can only provide encrypted or whatever meta information they have, not decrypted content.