They acknowledge this in the article as well, surprisingly enough.
> Corporate law experts say while there is nothing illegal about housing a business inside a shell company, the practice is often a strategic move to protect a firm's wealth or shield it against lawsuits and action from government regulators.
What is the thought process of someone writing this? Does this article have any meaningful or critical thought behind it?
They’re avoiding editorializing. PBS news has the same dry “facts only” flavor. Legitimate reporting takes the high road; corpo-media too often take the low road.
Unfortunately human information consumers tend to gravitate toward sources of maximum opinion.
Do you think "housing a business inside a shell company" is not editorializing when referring (apparently) to running a company that has a registered agent in a normal, permissive jurisdiction like Panama, Ireland, or Delaware?
No, I do not think that is editorializing. A shell company is a well understood concept that can be assessed in a reasonably objective manner.
That said, I was under the (perhaps mistaken) impression that the US company was shut down under the settlement agreement. So if this is indeed a shell I'd be curious to know the name and jurisdiction of the core business.
> A shell company is a well understood concept that can be assessed in a reasonably objective manner.
Well, that's my point: a shell company doesn't do any substantial business involving customers, payroll, etc, while Polymarket does seem to be actually operating a business. The "shell company" appellation implies that Polymarket is merely a cover for hiding wealth. Actually, NPR doesn't even make the claim that Polymarket is a shell company, but just trots out a fact about shell companies without any particular connection to Polymarket in the middle of this article! It's an implication without any attempt to provide backing facts, and they technically said nothing in this about Polymarket that needs to be sourced:
> Corporate law experts say while there is nothing illegal about housing a business inside a shell company, the practice is often a strategic move to protect a firm's wealth or shield it against lawsuits and action from government regulators.
I don't use Polymarket and may be a bit biased against them due to their X posting, but I used to work at NPR and am fairly dejected about how far they've gone in the past 10 years.
What are the ‘personal opinions or subjective interpretations’ you feel it’s using? What would a rewrite be to be non-‘editorializing’ in your opinion?
They're doing their part in keeping a spotlight on Polymarket. The content of the article is not irrelevant, but it is less important than the existence of the article.
I find similar behaviour in myself, particularly that dreading a task makes it significantly more difficult to start. I find that if I can manage to do just a little bit, even just open the application and maybe look around a bit at what I need to do, it really gets the momentum going for me.
Do you think there's anything that differentiates what we might call "general task dread" that perhaps anyone experiences to a certain degree from a more broad executive function disorder? Or is it that dreading leading to task paralysis is one of many symptoms of an executive function disorder?
How are you for task completion? For me, transferring a load of laundry from the washer to dryer is not an atomic operation. There is ample room to get derailed and wander off during the twenty seconds it should take. It can be interrupted by almost anything. Oh, I forgot to send that message. Oh, I forgot to check for the parcel. Oh, I need to go to the store today still. And I will walk away and forget to come back and finish.
Pretty good. I don't find I get derailed by other tasks but I do find others related to what I'm doing like "Oh, dishwasher's done, let's empty it, but oh wait let's clean the counter first" and then end up cleaning the sink and emptying the garbage as well
I think the frequency and level of impairment is what differentiates normal executive dysfunction from an executive functioning disorder.
Perhaps a bit rhetorical, but how often does this task dread occur? Does it also ever occur for things you want to do, not just obligated to do?
For me, I experience this issue for many tasks everyday. Then again, I have never had a normal executive functioning, so I cannot claim to know what it is like for normies.
I’ll also add that ADHD is more than just executive dysfunction too.
I'm really bad at it for things that aren't novel or really interesting, especially repetitive tasks, like doing illustrations for a customer for example, I know what to do, I've done it hundreds of times, but I'd just rather be doing something else. It does also happen for things I want to do but only usually if it's something I'm not confident about. Like I want to do a really comprehensive gardening setup this year, I've done all the research and planning, I just have no experience sewing seeds or growing vines, or how to setup indoor seed hatching, and I'm just dreading the whole starting process and have put it off too long- I should've started mid-April.
Problem is that it's been heavily contaminated with people speculating about who the author is. It would probably be difficult to get an unbiased answer out of it (although who knows - it's crazy that it can do this at all).
It's a hard stylometric challenge, just because of its format. The forum posts are probably better for comparison, but what I don't see people doing that I wish they would is comparing what the different Satoshi suspects have written since the forum posts and whitepaper.
Everybody's going to get more similar in terms of topic. Bitcoin actually exists now. There's more to say about it than there was at launch. But does anyone still sound like Satoshi? Or sound more like Satoshi than they did before?
The slight wrench in the works is that it's hard to do this with my personal favorite Satoshi candidate. He stopped writing altogether in 2014, and lost capacity from shortly after the whitepaper came out until he was writing with his eyes by the time he had his head frozen.
He's also the only candidate who seems more likely to me over time, though. The longer things go, the less likely a living person stays tight-lipped.
You missed the point. The fact that the whitepaper states an author will heavily affect the LLMs answer when asking it about the likely author of any correlatable portion of the text. It will answer based on its knowledge of Satoshi Nakamoto.
What's stopping you from making the trivial adjustment to the original question: "Who is the next likely person after Satoshi Nakamoto to have authored this"?
Even if they reset to several days ago and lose, say, thousands of edits, even tens of thousands of minor edits, they're still in a pretty good place. Losing a few days of edits is less-than-ideal but very tolerable for Wikipedia as a whole
At $work we're hosting business knowledge databases. Interestingly enough, if you need to revert a day or two of edits, you're better off to do it asap, over postponing and mulling over it. Especially if you can keep a dump or an export around.
People usually remember what they changed yesterday and have uploaded files and such still around. It's not great, but quite possible. Maybe you need to pull a few content articles out from the broken state if they ask. No huge deal.
If you decide to roll back after a week or so, editors get really annoyed, because now they are usually forced to backtrack and reconcile the state of the knowledge base, maybe you need a current and a rolled-back system, it may have regulatory implications and it's a huge pain in the neck.
I preach to everyone to fail as loudly as possible and as fast as possible. Don't try to "fix" unknown errors in code. It often catches fresh graduates off guard. If you fail very loud and fast most issues will be found asap and fixed.
I had to help out a team in the cleanup of a bug that corrupted some data silently for a while before being found. It was too long out to roll back and they needed all help to identify what was real or wrong data.
Nah, you can snapshot every 15 minutes. The snapshot interval depends on the frequency of changes and their capacity, but it's up to them how to allocate these capacities... but it's definitely doable and there are real reasons for doing so. You can collapse deltas between snapshots after some time to make them last longer. I'd be surprised if they don't do that.
As an aside, snapshotting would have prevented a good deal of horror stories shared by people who give AI access to the FS. Well, as long as you don't give it root.......
obviously you can. but, what is the actual snapshot frequency? like, what is the timestamp of the last known good snapshot? that is what matters.
in any case, the comment you are replying to is a hypothetical, which correctly points out that even a day or two of lost edits is fine (not ideal, but fine). your reply doesnt engage with their comment at all.
> the comment you are replying to is a hypothetical, which correctly points out that even a day or two of lost edits is fine (not ideal, but fine). your reply doesnt engage with their comment at all.
I did engage, by pointing out that it wasn't relevant nor a realistic scenario for a competent sysadmin. (Did you read the OP?) That's a /you/ problem if you rely on infrequent backups, especially for a service with so much flux.
> what is the actual snapshot frequency? like, what is the timestamp of the last known good snapshot?
? Why would I know what their internal operations are?
>I did engage, by pointing out that it wasn't relevant nor a realistic scenario for a competent sysadmin.
>Why would I know what their internal operations are?
i mean... you must, right? you know that once-a-day snapshots is not relevant to this specific incident. you know that their sysadmins are apparently competent. i just assumed you must have some sort of insider information to be so confident.
> my decade of dealing with incompetent sysadmins and broken backups (if they even exist) has given me the opposite of confidence.
Oh, I agree that the average bar is low. That's part of the reason I do it all myself.
The heuristic with wikimedia is that they've been running a PHP service that accepts and stores (anonymous) input for 25 years. The longetivity with the risk exposure that they have are indicators that they know what they are doing, and I'm sure they've learned from recovering all sorts of failures over the years.
Look at how quickly it was brought back up in this instance!
So, yeah. I don't think initial hypothetical counterpoint holds water, and that's what I have been pointing out.
i found kibone's reply to a hypothetical musing as if it was some counterpoint in a debate instead of a simple expansion on their comment to be off putting. we had some comments back and forth and we both came out of it just fine. weird of you to add on this little insult to an otherwise pretty normal exchange.
I have good faith, though I should get off hn now... :P
I still don't need to assume what the intent is. Troll or no troll, it works. My comments might inspire someone else to try a CoW fs. I'm also really impressed with wikimedia's technical team.
Nowadays I refuse to do any serious work that isn't in source control anywhere besides my NAS that takes copy-on-write snapshots every 15 minutes. It has saved my butt more times than I can count.
The problem isn't the granularity of the backup but since the worm silently nukes pages, it's virtually impossible to reconcile the state before the attack and the current state, so you have to just forfeit any changes made since then and ask the contributors to do the leg work of reapplying the correct changes
No: from what I can tell, they're being conservative, which is appropriate here. Once you've pushed the "stop bad things happening" button, there's no need to rush.
That's a total mischaracterization. OP is saying there are no safer fireworks, so some damage will be done, but until someone develops safer and better fireworks, people will continue to use the existing ones
Or we will ban OpenClaw, as many jurisdictions ban fireworks, and start filing CFAA cases against people whose moltbots misbehave. I'm not happy about that option, I remember Aaron Swartz, but it's not acceptable for an industry to declare that they provide a useful service so they're not going to self-regulate.
My perspective is all AI needs to have way more legal controls around use and accountability, so I’m not particularly sympathetic to “rapidly growing new public ill is unsafe, but there’s no safer option”
How is intent relevant to this? Or is it not? If you did happen to play out your scenario, your intent would clearly be to insidiously confirm delusions. What is OpenAI's intent? To confirm delusions?
Your honour, my vertically-mounted machine gun array was not intended to kill bystanders! The chance that a bullet will hit someone's skull is low, and the pitter-patter noise is so very pleasing. All I'm doing is constructing the array and supplying the bullets. I'm even designing guardrails to automatically retarget the ground-fall away from picnics and population centres! I'm being responsible.
OpenAI strongly reinforces feelings of superiority and uniqueness in its users. It is constantly patting you on the back for obvious stuff and goes out of its way to make you feel good about using OpenAI in ways that are detrimental to mental health.
The default personality (You're absolutely right!) is so grating, but 5.2 set to "terse, professional mode" or whatever they call it is pretty good at not being sycophantic. I would imagine that the sort of person who is predisposed to fall into a delusional spiral won't be setting it to that mode, though.
Exactly. They're predisposed to a delusional spiral and will therefore be attracted to the sycophantic model. OpenAI is thus incentivized to provide the sycophantic model.
Yes, that's what it seems like. They deliberately engineered 4o to agree with virtually anything the user said, ostensibly to boost engagement numbers. This was at the very least negligently reckless.
Or if you have an already incomplete set of scrabble tiles: attach magnets to the backs of the ones that spell "dirty" and "clean". Whichever isn't scrambled on the door is the state of the dishwasher.
Or simply don't rinse the dishes before you put them in[0]. I've never had trouble telling.
[0] Exceptions: uncooked eggs, yogurt, and for some reason, salsa? None of which ever come off for me if they sit for long before you run the dishwasher.
reply