Galen has achieved an amazing amount over the years, both in MS research and at MS. Do you have a real reason to believe he won't achieve this or just want to character assassinate him with no evidence
(We went to the same university, ive never worked with him and actually worked at a competitor for about twenty years, but know plenty of folks who have worked with him and am fairly familiar with his work and research)
TBF this does reek of professional corporate egoism circumventing "if it ain't broke don't fix it" practicalities. Personally I'm quite fearful of how many more things it'll break.
1. You are all probably talking past each other - I expect the original question of legality was about criminal, and not civil, law.
2. I'm sure they did not view or sign the TOS to access this. You can't be bound to a contract you never view or intentionally assent to. At least in most countries/places.
For example, in the US I can show you tons of cases in just about every state and federal court where the court decided the TOS doesn't apply because it was never viewed or assented to.
(Ironically it works both ways, so if the contract provides you any guarantees, you can't take advantage of them to sue for breach if yuo never assented)
It's different if you can prove that they knew there was a TOS they would be bound by and just never bothered to look at the terms.
That is very hard to prove, and it does not suffice to prove that everybody has a TOS these days or whatever. You have to prove actual knowledge of a TOS by these particular defendants.
I use the US because it tends to be on the forefront of maximal browserwrap enforcement, so if it's not going to be enforced there, it's usually not going to be enforced anywhere
As i've mentioned elsewhere, i've called him out on facts where i was literally there and he has no idea what the's talking about, and he doesn't care.
He just makes up facts to suit his arguments and hopes nobody looks too hard.
I mostly just wish his nonsense wouldn't keep getting posted here as if it is of any quality at all, and worth engaging with.
Matt Stoller is often just trivially wrong. Like his arguments, and often "facts", rarely survive any sort of even mild scrutiny.
At one point i wrote a detailed point-by-point rebuttal of where either his facts or his arguments were just wrong, for like 10 of his articles, but i eventually gave up.
He doesn't even really try. I just decided i'm not the target audience. The target audience is either people who already agree with Matt Stoller and want to feel like they are right, or people who can't be bothered to do even a trivial amount of research.
Feel free to look at my comment history on matt's previous articles, like i've said, i've done point by point before if that's what you want.
I'm just not spending the time to do it anymore because after doing it a lot, matt doesn't ever get better.
It's always just the same garbage.
Past a certain point, it's just not worth engaging with garbage anymore, and it's not reasonable to say "well you didn't engage with his garbage this time, so therefore you lose/are wrong by default".
No, actually, past a certain point, the onus is on him to stop producing garbage before anyone has to waste their time engaging.
While i did go point by point for a while (years actually) on his articles, I finally gave up when he started writing articles about the early days of android, and asserting lots of things, and I was actually there and doing the work with a small number of others, so i know why certain things were done because either I decided them, someone i know very closely decided them, or I was in the room when it was decided. As usual, Matt simply asserts his own set of facts, and when pressed for sources, it turns out he has none. It's just his own views, masquerading as fact. But that doesn't stop him at all! He'll just assert facts that are convenient to him and when pressed for sources just ignore or move on to the next target.
Always another BIG newsletter to write!
This is of course, independent with whether i agree or disagree with any of his particular views - there are plenty of people i disagree with who i would happily point you at on antitrust if you want it, becuase despite our disagreements, at least they aren't making up facts and writing soothsaying garbage based on it.
You can't do that but you can follow the above sentence with 1000 more words?"
Feel free to use a word counter.
The post above yours has about 286 words after the sentence you quoted. Quite ironic for you to criticize the grandparent when you're being even lazier.
None of the issues go away just because it's in chat?
Freeform looks and acts like text, except for a set of things that someone vetted and made work.
If the interactive diagram or UI you click on now owns you, it doesn't matter if it was inside the chat window or outside the chat window.
Now, in this case, it's not arbitrary UI, but if you believe that the parsing/validation/rendering/two way data binding/incremental composition (the spec requires that you be able to build up UI incrementally) of these components: https://a2ui.org/specification/v0.9-a2ui/#standard-component...
as transported/renderered/etc by NxM combinations of implementations (there are 4 renderers and a bunch of transports right now), is not going to have security issues, i've got a bridge to sell you.
Here, i'll sell it to you in gemini, just click a few times on the "totally safe text box" for me before you sign your name.
My friend once called something a babydoggle - something you know will be a boondoggle, but is still in its small formative stages.
> None of the issues go away just because it's in chat?
There is a wast difference in risk between me clicking a button provided by Claude in my Claude chat, on the basis of conversations I have had with Claude, and clicking a random button on a random website. Both can contain a malicious. One is substantially higher risk. Separately, linking a UI constructed this way up to an agent and let third parties interact with it, is much riskier to you than to them.
> If the interactive diagram or UI you click on now owns you, it doesn't matter if it was inside the chat window or outside the chat window.
In that scenario, the UI elements are irrelevant barring a buggy implementation (yes, I've read the rest, see below), as you can achieve the same things as you can do that way with just presenting the user with a basic link and telling them to press it.
> as transported/renderered/etc by NxM combinations of implementations (there are 4 renderers and a bunch of transports right now), is not going to have security issues, i've got a bridge to sell you.
I very much doubt we'll see many implementations that won't just use a web view for this, and I very much doubt these issues will even fall in the top 10 security issues people will run into with AI tooling. Sure, there will be bugs. You can use this argument against anything that requires changes to client software.
But if you're concerned about the security of clients, mcp and hooks is a far bigger rats nest of things that are inherently risky due to the way they are designed.
Flexner's "Understanding Wood Finishing" has a section about "the myth of food safety" that pretty directly states that food safety isn't a serious concern for fully cured finishes.
Woodworker and person who has spent a tremendous amount of time on wood finishing chemistry here.
This is very confused.
First, all wood finishes you can buy are food-safe once cured. They aren't allowed to be sold otherwise, at least in the US/Europe/et al.
If you are using them once heated, this is not always as true (and regulations vary a bit), but if we are talking about food prep/salad/you name it, they are all safe.
Heat wise, if we are talking about using it in boiling water to stir something, most finishes would be fine from a safety standpoint (not all can withstand this though).
As a general rule of thumb, if you aren't heating the wood above 200F, you aren't really going to get a finishes to release toxic fumes[1]
Second, as for solvents - smell is not everything. The HDI he mentions rubio having will not smell like anything until the concentration is way way way way too high. If you can smell it, you are in trouble. HDI is also much more dangerous than most solvents[2].
The oil is also a solvent.
Solvents are just things that you can dissolve something else in.
If they want to avoid certain types of solvents for some reason, that should be about safety or something, and if they want to evaluate that, smell is probably the wrong evaluation criteria.
To give one example of solvent elimination with a purpose, let's take VOC's, which are about pollution[3].
Avoiding VOC solvents makes for cleaner air, but again, VOC compliant/exempt/etc solvents vary wildly in whether they are safer for people or not than non-VOC exempt solvents.
If you are trying instead to avoid human-toxic solvents, you would choose a different set, etc.
[1] There are so many finishes with so many different properties that i can't 100% guarantee this, but non-professional stuff you can buy at a woodworking store or a big box store is going to be fine
[2] The lack of smell of isocyanate's is main the reason you can get service life indicating respirator catridges from 3m/et al - otherwise you would not be able to determine if your cartridge is working or not, since you would not smell it when spray finishing/etc until the concentration is way too high, even if your cartridge is spent. Sane folks just use supplied air anyway, rather than risk it at all.
[3] not safety to humans, though often highly confused with being safer.
I expect most would count baking and candy making among "food prep." the latter of which routinely reaches temperatures around 200-300°F. If stirring a mixture of boiling sugar for 20 minutes at 230°F exceeds the expected food-safety threshold, it seems like there shouldn't be as casual a usage of terms as this:
> If you are using them once heated, this is not always as true (and regulations vary a bit), but if we are talking about food prep/salad/you name it, they are all safe.
Also, spatula hits the pan quite often and the pan surface routinely goes way above 200F. Talking searing and it's what 400F to 500F? Boiling too, the pan surface gets much hotter than boiling water.
I've been using Osmo oils. This top oil and also their butcher block. Besides what they say that it is food safe, would this be fine for utensils which may get exposure to cooking temperatures ? Whether mixing soup or stir fry ?
Osmo topoil is actually mostly what it says on the can - wax + oil. The wax part will melt/degrade very quickly at cooking temps. the oil portion will not.
If you are exposing it to cooking temps, and want something very natural, i'd just use an oil and not a "hardwax". The wax part is not going to buy anything.
"hardwax" is just a made up term that means nothing for real, some of them are harder waxes (carnauba), some of them are not.
In any case, none of them will survive heat, because the wax won't.
Honestly I just use the utensils unfinished. They work fine and survive dishwashing fine. I still have over 20 years old cooking spoons that go through this kind of abuse.
They deliberately label the not food safe ones as "not food safe" and "not a wood finish". They have to.
So if you are using that as a wood finish, you get what you get?
Also most of it is still food safe when cured anyway, it just does't always fully cure and it's hard to tell when it's cured.
But once the polymerization/etc has actually finished, there are no oxidizing agents or driers or ... left.
If you look at the law suits that lead to it being labeled the way it is, it's not about food safe when cured, it's about the inability to tell when curing actually finished, and final curing taking a very long time.
Cobalt is an element and polymerization is not a nuclear reaction, so there's still cobalt in the finish when it finishes curing. The driers are catalysts AFAIK.
"Sane folks just use supplied air anyway, rather than risk it at all."
For small one-time projects it's generally fine to just use a brand new filter and toss it afterwards. Hobbyists painting a car panel aren't using supplied air.
People often put the cartridges in a plastic (or sometimes mylar if they are advanced) bag to save money, and change them when they can smell stuff. This is a bad plan with isocyanate.
Auto finishes are moving towards iso-free 2k urethanes anyway.
(wood will get there, but tends to lag)
PU is about the last coating I'd like to see on my food utensils. Not very interested in a daily dose of microplastics injected directly into my food...
- most finishes are indeed "food safe after curing", I'm aware of that. How they look on wood, how they perform when being dipped in hot soup or when drinking hot liquids from them, that's harder to assess without buying cans of finish that I have to store forever if I don't like them.
- HDI doesn't smell indeed, I never said it did. In fact two-component hardwax oils would have been perfect if it was easier to mix and apply in small quantities. Unfortunately for the few drops of oil I need on a spoon, it's too messy
- I'm talking about solvents in the definition that most consumers know about them: volatile solvents that usually smell strongly. I used low-VOC solvent-based finishes and they still smell. Organic components aren't the only smelly things in solvents, and I simply can't stand them anymore, that's all. It's not all about the dangers, it's for my own comfort.
If you can point me to a solvent-based hardwax oil that smells of only the oils and waxes inside, I'll buy it in a pinch and forget about melting waxes in my microwave. Google search doesn't help here, I need to hear it from someone with experience
Depends wildly on the finish. For boiling, i just wouldn't worry.
Most of the toxic fumes/etc come from breaking molecular bonds. There is a minimum temperature, and below that temperature, it just doesn't really occur.
If it starts happening, regardless of whether there is visible smoke/vapor, the finish will quite obviously visibly degrade. Either it will flake off, slough off, or you will just be able to remove it with your fingernail.
Take polyurethanes - they mostly start releasing toxic fumes at 300-400F just about the second they get to that temperature.
Below that, nothing.
This is because that's the temperature at which the isocyanate bonds start to break, even if there is no flame. You will not see smoke or vapor. But it will become essentially non-protective and flake off or otherwise visibly degrade.
At a much higher temperature (700-800F) you would break down the polyol, which point it will likely flat out ignite, and burn with a very thick, toxic smoke. People used to actually think polyurethane foam was non-flammable. It's highly flammable. It just has a high ignition temperature. In houses, you are now required to cover it with some form of fire barrier or otherwise meet E-84 criteria through additives, etc.
We don't worry too much about this for wood pieces, because the only time they are exposed to this level of heat is when something is already on fire :)
Also keep in mind that things that are called polyurethanes may or may not actually be polyurethanes.
There is the "colloquial" name that you often find for a finish in marketing literature, and then the actual chemistrsy.
A good example is water-based lacquers, which are usually just acrylic resins.
Most polyurethanes are actually polyurethanes of some sort. Everything else is often a wacky mix.
Any company dumb enough to try to use this to ignore actual state law will get what they deserve. No state court will give them a pass when they claim an EO has any force of law or that it was reasonable to rely on it.
Even given the current state of things (I’m a lawyer, so well aware) I would put money on this
It could have some teeth considering that the whole point is the executive office is going to establish a task force that investigates state laws in opposition of this federal deregulation of AI. Any states deemed to be out of sync will have certain kinds of federal funding cut from them.
There are a lot of states, and especially state universities, that will not like that.
The Executive can't actually cut approriated federal funding, since budgets are congress's job.
The executive, in fact, must spend money that congress appropriates. Unless it is illegal/et al to do so, or the funding otherwise allows prseidential discretion, they are required to do so.
Yes, they did some EO's purporting to cut funding. None that related to non-discretionary funding have been upheld, even by "trump" judges, and so far all non-discretionary (IE explicitly directed by congress) funding cut has been restored, AFAIK. All are a wildly clear violation of separation of powers, and so far no judge has disagreed.
(Though don't confuse whether they have to spend the money the way congress directs with whether they can or can't fire federal employees, etc)
There is a path to the president impounding appropriated money through the impoundment control act, but they haven't done it or followed the process so far.
(We went to the same university, ive never worked with him and actually worked at a competitor for about twenty years, but know plenty of folks who have worked with him and am fairly familiar with his work and research)
reply