Until the Vector API is out of incubation this is a bit premature. I would love the vector api to be fully realized, it would make my life so much easier. But its on the twelth incubation and there's no end in sight.
X (Formerly Twitter) (The everything app) does have a huge issue with long drawn on tweets now. Not to mention people who try and bait people in with intentionally cutting things off.
How much of this issue is self-inflicted? Micron is building a massive fab in Syracuse. They've spent like 4 years seeking approval, lobbying politicians, doing BS "environmental impact studies" (which are mostly just rent seeking and political handouts). They finally started building, but if they had just been able to put shovel in the ground we would already have this fab be producing memory.
It took just over 3 years to get approved, and the reason it took so long is that it is massive project (1400 acres) and has enormous infrastructure requirements that needed comprehensive study by reviewing agencies to make sure the area could handle them.
The first two fabs there will require 17 million gallons perday of water and when fully operations in the early 2040s the facility will need 48 million gallons per day. That is more than existing infrastructure can handle so the project also includes a new pipeline extension to Lake Ontario.
That water requires extensive treatment before it can be discharged. It will be pretreated on site, then go to a new $1 billion industrial wastewater treatment plant being for this project, and then finally discharged into the Oneida river.
The energy requirements when fully operation are 1850 MW drawn continuously 24/7 every day of the year. That's 16 TWh a year.
For comparison that is a little above the annual electricity use of Ft. Worth, TX or Charlotte, NC, and little below Indianapolis, IN. It is about 14% under San Francisco, CA. A little over half of Chicago, IL, about 1/3 of Los Angeles, CA, and about 30% of NYC.
That's way beyond the existing grid capacity, so lots of infrastructure upgrades there are taking place.
If only we didn't have 100+ years of factories shitting where we eat we might not have thousands of governments wanting assurances that companies don't harm people in their area.
Silicon Valley is littered with SuperFund sites of bankrupted companies who conveniently couldn't afford to clean up the toxic mess they left behind when they became the vessel full of debt after the corporate shell game moved on.
Do these environmental impact studies effectively stop that? could they effectively stop this issue with a more efficient process?
What happens now is that there are a large amount of studies, that pay consultants and organizations to generate thousands of pages of documentation. They then turn around, have some niche issues that they pay to go away. For example was Micron having to purchase a few acres of land 25 miles away as a park for some owls effectively helping stop superfund sites?
This is basically environmentalism security theater and political grifting.
Welcome the Abundance Agenda. There are entire books being written about how we need to streamline the bureaucracy and policies to actually accomplish the goals of the environmental movement, not just create a self-licking-ice-cream-cone of Vogons, forms/checklists, and tit-for-tat lawsuits.
Your concern, while well intentioned, is a red herring. At best it can highlight that enforcement of negative externalities is imperfect, but then again everything is.
Maybe if they tried to build some of these on existing dilapidated commercial or industrial plots that are vacant and languishing they wouldn't have to jump through so many procedural and political hoops. I'm told these exist all over rural america.
Instead they want to build their 100 acre Data-Center/Technology Industrial Park adjacent to the burrowing owl habitats or up against Grandma Martha's backyard.
Building on vacant industrial land is more expensive because you have to clean it up first. It might even be a superfund site, no one is interested in actually finding out. There hasn't been any room on compromise or cleanup assistance in most cases.
There is also additional risk here. If company X made an unknown superfund site, then company Y develops on it. Is company Y then liable if the superfund site becomes known?
A "SuperFund Site" specifically exists because the previous company no longer exists in a form that any assets can be extracted from the legal entity. There's no point in suing something which can't pay damages. It's not just "a business with a toxic piece of land". The term "SuperFund" means the EPA has taken over the responsibility of managing the cleanup after the previous company is gone (eg. The legal entity split off some of their their albatross debts/liabilities such as toxic land that no longer can be used for revenue onto a disposable company that they spun off)
Also land doesn't come with a warranty when it is transferred. So long as the previous owner disclosed all of the relevant information about any hazards known to the seller that is legally required, the old owner is off the hook. If you sell a house with lead paint which was built on landfill that exists near high voltage power lines and the seller described those facts in the escrow period to the buyer (usually in a mass of paperwork), you can't be held liable if the buyer's family develops health issues in that house.
Please don't try to speculate yourself into non-existent legal scenarios.
All this speculation is pointless. Superfund sites haven't had their cleanup funded by the companies doing the pollution since 1995, when congress decided that the tax on companies to fund such cleanup (which had funded 70% of the cleanup of superfund sites up to that point) no longer needed to exist, and since then the taxpaying public of you and me have been paying every single dollar for cleaning up the pollutants these companies emit.
You didn't have to pay to cleanup a site before using it, because the expectation was that you paid while running your business and the site would be cleaned before you wanted to utilize it.
But now the "Superfund" has been underfunded for like 20 years. Biden's IRA set up a new tax for ten years but, not sure how well that's going.
We literally had the system set up well and working fine, but it cost companies a few dollars so it had to go when the "Greed is good" folks came along.
The widespread usage of laptops in schools is a massive mistake in the first place. The schools using chromebooks has the same root cause, myopic thinking by administrators.
One thing not mentioned here, is how this also affects those not gambling. People act as if the only problem is how it exploits gambling addicts.
But it fundamentally changes sports. Both the amount of money in them, which comes with their own problems (see ManCity's judgement today). But also how players are affected. I know a soccer player in lower divisions getting death threats because someone in another country was gambling on their match. People try to bribe what's basically amateurs etc.
I suspect most of the fraud by volume is going to be committed in the lower leagues in most nations just do to more access to individuals and less scrutiny.
The problem is any fraud at all, and the fact that it’s so incredibly easy to do it now, degrades trust and the sense of fair play. It’s now much more believable to question refs making bad calls against one team or another because of a profit incentive.
I'm not sure legalized betting makes fraud itself that much easier, but I'd agree that the incentives could now be larger in the US if tied in with legal betting. Those markets dwarf the illegal markets that drove a lot of famous instances of fraud prior to legalization. More fans are probably suspicious of calls now but, I mean, sports fans don't generally need much of a push to find a reason for suspicion of officials.
Not to mention the allegations of match fixing. As a massive college football (American) fan, every outcome that someone doesn't like is questioned on every forum as "the refs had a bet on it" or whatever.
Gambling addiction is a brutal public health problem. As I understand it, gambling addicts have a very high incidence of suicidal ideation. When people work in these industries, their paychecks are directly coming from putting people into deep suffering.
That's a matter of opinion. There are those of us that believe that it is a gross violation of one's human rights to dictate how they're allowed to spend the money that they earned.
It's a side effect of liberty that people can choose to put themselves into deep suffering. I know people who do the same by blowing all of their money on designer clothes or expensive cars. Nobody is talking about regulating poor people wasting money on those things.
If you earn the money, you're entitled to piss it away. Them's the breaks.
I don't think any part of the comment you're responding to is "a matter of opinion." You're choosing to insert your opinion that you don't think it's moral for a government to help addicts if they are charged for the thing they're addicted to.
You're welcome to that opinion, but don't pretend that "addiction is a public health issue, gambling addicts have high suicide rates, and many profit from others' addictions" are subjective.
Do you also support legalization of hard drugs? Why not have a heroin store in every town. The customers are very loyal. Let people waste their money on drugs, it's not my place to tell people what to spend their money on. Who knows, maybe we'll get heroin ads on the subway. In fact, let's let cigarette companies also advertise again! what could possibly go wrong?
Problem is when it effects others. Addicts often have families. There's also a social cost when they go broke and lose everything. Just like with drug addicts.
But this is more about the companies preying on addiction, incentivizing it.
at the same time, it's really not cool for billions of dollars to be spent on research of how to best influence susceptible people (who would otherwise not piss it all away,) to piss all their money away.
ban the predatory advertising and maximally addictive interfaces and most people will be happy. you can still piss your money away if you want to. but it really shouldn't be one poor sap with an addiction vs. a trillion dollar industry trying to exploit that addiction.
> That's a matter of opinion. There are those of us that believe that it is a gross violation of one's human rights to dictate how they're allowed to spend the money that they earned.
Hi, we live in a society. People who bankrupt themselves out of whatever money they have earned and become a burden to the society at large via homelessness/welfare/crime. Which is also the same case for hard drugs (traditionally this was originally a problem with opiates). I personally do not care if you decide you want to kill yourself with heroin, but I do care as soon as our taxes are used to deal with you as a side-effect.
So making reasonable laws that curtail some of the worst things you can piss your money away on to curb crime/homelessness/welfare/er-bill-delenquency expenditures seems like a wise decision.
Libertarian thinking tries to ignore these side effects but they are real.
>I personally do not care if you decide you want to kill yourself with heroin, but I do care as soon as our taxes are used to deal with you as a side-effect.
isn't this already the case with a lot of things that carry less negative stigma? bankrupcty, limited liability, extreme sports (base jumping, rock climbing, etc), financial risk taking, health choices, bailouts are more socially accepted, but they also risk pushing costs onto the public upon failure.
i mean if you base jump and your chute fails you end up as a smear at the bottom of a cliff somewhere. They will probably attempt an air rescue and some poor park ranger will have to come out with some buckets of water and wash whats left of you off their monument. However as someone who knows someone who had to be airlifted out of a national park, he survived and paid for that helicopter ride and his medical bills (gust of wind blew him off an exposed high trail and down into a very steep ravine where he broke a leg).
A heroin/fent/meth addict doesn't die right away, and usually doesn't die until after years of crime/homelessness/welfare. They cost every day until they finally overdose, now with narcan (if they are on an opiate) they can be saved from that overdose (and hopefully rehabilitated) but often that doesn't even stop them.
We have to draw lines somewhere and sports betting, in my opinion is somewhere a line should be re-drawn.
Advertising needs to be more targeted if anything. I don't want to see a bunch of irrelevant junk - I want to see high quality products that are useful to my life.
Is your idea that manipulative advertising actually works based on anything? Trying to make people want something they don't already want is a massive waste of money.
Yes, based on it being one of the largest most profitable industries in the world. There is an immense amount of data showing that shoveling ad money into a product will convince some percent of people to buy it. Or just glance at the ads that fill up most people's Facebook feed and Google SERPs; it's mostly crap that looks flashy but few seconds but that few if any people actually have a real need for.
I've personally blocked who knows how many tens of thousands of ads online over the past couple decades. Somehow I doubt my life is lacking for not buying hundreds of extra products I would have learned about from all those targeted ads.
Let's work off of dictionary.com's definition of manipulation:
>to manage or influence skillfully, especially in an unfair manner.
I think we can agree that advertisers influence skillfully, given that advertising firms don't typically pick their executives from a pool of unskilled labor. If I were taking your position, I would take issue with the qualifier "unfair" here. After all, what's unfair about showing a product that people are interested in? Isn't that what they want? To be shown things that are interesting? People don't often go to uninteresting movies, or sit through uninteresting lectures. Surely it saves everyone a lot of time to skip through the uninteresting products and get right to the ones that actually make sense for a person to buy.
This is where it gets interesting. Targeted ads a not simply "showing a person something they are interested in, because in order to show something to someone who is interested in it, we have to have a willful expression of that interest. When a person goes to a car dealership, they don't say "hey! It's unfair that you're showing me all these cars!" because, well, they expressed interest in cars by showing up at a car dealership and asking for a person to show them around.
Targeted ads do not take in willful signals. They take in surveillance data. They watch how a person moves and infer things about them; they assess when the right moment of low will power exists, to insert the ad at just the right moment of influence-ability. That is what is unfair about them, because it subverts the social contract around the purchase of goods and services. Instead of making one's product so good that the most number of people will buy it, they follow people around to find the time they are most vulnerable to what they're selling.
In that case you don't want advertising, you want better product discovery. Advertising is fundamentally incompatible with usefulness because it's based on how much cash someone can fork over. A company can make the best product in a market segment, but if they don't have the money to advertise it, they will lose to the hot garbage offered by their competitors. The only recourse is people organically recommending the product to one another - so the most useful venue is not even advertising. Letting companies pay for your attention is actively hostile to you, because there is no guarantee they're presenting you with the best option, just THEIR option.
I'll repeat an idea I had a while ago, but if countries just had national networks where companies could list their products and services in a way that is highly structured and as systematically scrubbed of bias or psychological manipulation as possible, we would get the best of both worlds. Effortless and non-favoring lookup of what you want, fair comparisons between products, no favoritism to the wealthy, no FOMO or mind tricks.
> because it's based on how much cash someone can fork over
I'd argue here that a business's marketing budget is going to be effectively unlimited if it's profitable, assuming they have the initial budget to kickstart it which most do. If $10 in ad spend returns $12, you can just keep pouring money into it.
Apart from that yeah you're right that the goal is better product discovery.
In general, there is a bigger philosophical question.
Do we treat humans as
1) having full agency, and thus full responsibility for their actions
2) having less than full agency, and then to what extent must society/governments implement control over things that humans can't control within themselves
Because generally, if you subscribe to 1, there is nothing immortal from taking money from a human that that wants to hand it over, provided that human well knows what is at stake. So as long as these websites aren't defrauding the customers with fake stats, there really is nothing wrong.
If you subscribe to 2, then thats a much riskier line to walk because that affects a lot of things, not just gambling.
We clearly subscribe to option 2 in the United States. We don't allow access to medication based on your own volition. We don't allow access to medical procedures based on your own volition.
Option 2 is world wide. Unfortunately it seems to be the correct one if we want society to last. I don't think that humans have the internal machinery in their brains compatible with growing a society without strong oversight.
You frame as if agency exists, then exploitive coercion doesn't exist.
We can respect the agency of folks to smoke or drink, while also criminalizing lying to entire populations about the known health effects of your products.
We can respect people as having agency, while also acknowledging that psy-ops like those run by Cambridge Analytica, or even normal psy-ops like mass market advertising, can influence groups of people through deceptive or manipulative ways in aggregate and cause massive harms.
We can respect personal agency while also acknowledging some folks have addiction problems, addictions problems be intentionally manufactured by products and platforms. There is a balance between allowing a poker game, and allowing the MGM Grand to plant a limo driver in a recovering addict's driveway.
We can respect agency while acknowledging those with large reach because of wealth can cause mass harm through media, influence and coercion if unregulated.
We can grant authorities to police and politicians without Qualified Immunity from consequences of their actions.
1. If someone knows all the information, but still chooses to make the wrong decision.
2. Someone is being told wrong or incomplete information, leading them to make the wrong decision
3. Someone is being forced by external means into making an wrong decision.
Two and three are already illegal, under fraud and coersion.
Im solely talking about 1. Because if you don't believe people have full agency in that regard, you have to prove to what extent can you determine what is deception. You can't just willy nilly say that something feels immoral, and therefore should be banned.
You appear to be making the assertion that any economic exchange taken by two adults with full information is morally acceptable. Is that correct?
If so, would you accept the following as moral actions?
Financial adviser charging substantially above-market fees to recent widows, who lack experience in finance (All information is available, but not understood)
Selling heroin outside of a drug rehab clinic (All information available & understood, but under compromising circumstances)
>Financial adviser charging substantially above-market fees to recent widows, who lack experience in finance
As long as the financial advisers statement is along the lines of "this is the service I provide, these are my rates", with no lies about saying how his rates are the best or lying about what he can actually do, absolutely no problem.
That doesn't mean that he is of a moral upstanding character, but he certainly shouldn't be banned from setting his own price.
>Selling heroin outside of a drug rehab clinic (All information available & understood, but under compromising circumstances)
This one is tricky, because unlike online sports gambling, this ties into other things.
My answer would still be yes with the following caveats
* The heroin seller is FDA certified and not making the drug at home where he can accidentally mess it up and kill someone that is not expecting to die.
* We have a system of dealing with people effectively who turn to drugs. Id be 100% for state/government funded drug camps where anyone can either voluntarily enter, or get put there if their drug use causes them to be a public nuisance. They can stay there, get shelter and food and basic first aid for free, and get all the drugs they want, with 2 caveats: no advanced medical care (if you OD, or have a heart attack, you die), and the only way to leave is to go through a trial reintegration program where you get support for getting off drugs, get put to work, and do this for a year before being let out.
It means that you assume that the person is capable of rationally analyzing a situation, and making the best choice for themselves. And if that choice is financial ruin, than that is what they want, and if doesn't affect anyone else, they should be able to make that choice.
It is possible to believe that people have full agency and allow them to make wrong decisions, but in the case of wrong decisions about harmful addictive things where such people tend to later themselves wish they had not gone down that path also believe that we should not allow others to help them make that wrong decision.
You're treating the state as "we". It certainly claims to be "us", but that claim is - for most world states - partially, or entirely, invalid.
Also, on a semi-related note - there is the legality of gambling, the legality of running a gambling operation, and the legality of doing so for pecuniary gain, and it is possible for just part of these three to be illegal.
Every man and woman and child for themselves! Cooperation and support are for weaklings.
More seriously, it seems like you have an uncommon view about good ways for people to relate to each other. You may recall that humans evolved to live in large, cooperative groups :)
> Are humans not in control of what they get addicted to?
When you see an attractive woman, do you have a choice about whether you think she's attractive?
I would say that is so instinctual as to not be a choice, even though different people have different opinions about who is attractive. And yet we know that men in particular go to great lengths to be with attractive women, some to the point where it becomes an obsession.
What about food? Do you not like things that have a bit of fat, sugar, and maybe some crunch to it? There are clearly people who, despite having all the necessary information, will eat too much, to the point where they become ill from it. How is that a choice?
Every decision that we make, at every moment in our lives, is exactly how an LLM chooses the next token to output - at the end of our thought chain, there is allways one that wins with the highest probability.
Its highlighted well in the psychological effect of tossing a coin when you are not sure about something, not to make the choice for you, but to see how you feel about the outcome, which tells you what you really want.
So for someone that overeats, and then feels ill, knowing that would happen, is simply a case of them valuing the enjoyment of food over feeling ill. If they were perfectly logical, without emotions, they would overeat, feel ill, and then not complain about feeling ill because they understood that they did it to themselves and this is a necessary sacrifice for the enjoyment of prior. But because humans are emotional we react to feeling ill with negative emotion, which externally makes it seem like we made the wrong choice, but we didnt.
Fundamentally, when it comes to making any decision, there is always one that we will pick (which sometimes includes inaction), based on perceived values of the expected outcome.
We may feel bad about it, we may feel scared, we may have any other emotion in relation to it, but if a person commits to that decision, that perceived outcome is what they truly desire.
This may seem like we don't have free will, but that is not the case. We can chose what we value, which affects how we internally rank outcomes based on the percieved value. And that can be a logical decision.
In my lifetime I've witnessed America accept new revenue sources by relaxing the moral code. First, it was allowing businesses to be open on Sunday. Then it was allowing liquor sales on Sunday. Then it was liquor ads on television. Then it was very controlled, state-run gambling (the lottery). Then it was casino gambling. Now it's online gambling and 'prediction markets'. Then it was recreational marijuana use. And so on. My point of reference is Missouri, where I grew up, but I think most states have followed a pretty similar path, all in search of new sources of revenue. I predict this trend will continue all the way to prostitution. Yes, that sounds crazy, but if you would've told me in the early-80s that Missouri would have casinos and legal weed, I would've considered that crazy.
I think legalizing cannabis was more about not jailing people for consuming a plant.
It's hard to respect a legal system that jails someone who wasn't hurting anyone. Repealing a law that criminalizes victimless behavior, especially when so many people already break it, paradoxically increases respect for other laws. It reinforces that the law serves a purpose: protecting people and promoting the general welfare.
There is no such thing as a victimless crime. Smoking marijuana has many many victims. I have personally seen enough people that smoked themselves stupid or into poverty that it hard for me to see it as a victimless crime. The issue was always that that laws and punishments were too lax.
> I have personally seen enough people that smoked themselves stupid or into poverty
We mostly don't criminalize self-harm. Is it really better for those people to be in prison, with violent criminals, and have a record, than be stupid or poor from too much smoking? Who does that help?
Drunk people get into accidents and fights and even commit murder. Cannabis users mostly stay home and snack. And yet we don't lock up people for buying a six-pack.
Cannabis isn't as chemically addictive as gambling.
Gambling is a victimless crime, if the gambler is a single person with no dependents. Most of the harms are when someone gambles away the family home or their kids' college funds.
Gambling is worse than cannabis. There's no limit, other than your credit, to how much money you can lose gambling. That's not true for cannabis. You can only consume so much and even grow it for free if you need to.
I support legalizing gambling too. Making all gambling illegal drives it underground and allows criminals to profit from it.
But I equally strongly oppose online gambling or gambling advertising (while we're on the subject, I think alcohol advertising shouldn't exist either). You can't smoke or drink anywhere, anytime. Why should gambling be any different? Go to an IRL casino or betting shop or racetrack and gamble. Regulate the hours and locations of these establishments.
Gambling, alcohol, and cannabis aren't good for you. So why allow them to be marketed to people? If they want to gamble (or drink or smoke) they'll find out about it and do it. No need to deliberately try to get people to do it.
You know prositution is already legal in certain counties in Nevada, and it's been that way since '71?
The list is far longer than you've mentioned.
Here's a list of things you're allowed to profit on either as an investor or as a participant that are quite wild: Fighting with gloves (more lethal than bare-knuckle), bare-knuckle fights, kids in contact sports (even combat sports), throwing away perfectly good food in order to lower taxable income, not planting a crop specifically because it wouldn't make enough profit, gig-economy not paying living wages, a minimum wage below living wage, predatory lending, algorithmic social media that swings elections, targetted advertisement psyops, marketing to children, cosmetic surgery in general but especially for children, forced conversion 'therapy', experimental life saving treatments gate-kept by money, planned obsolescence, plastic packaging...
In combat sports, we're really not too far removed from the collisuem, just that it's "not meant to be to the death" even though it does often result in death or lifelong conditions. The fighters get paid, the organizers get paid, the arena gets paid, the advertisers get paid...All in the name of watching someone not quite kill someone.
Hell, we've even still got slavery tucked neatly away behind "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States.", but we know that many sitting in prison are demonstrably innocent. The prison is allowed to require that every inmate works. You're allowed to run an organization that profits from these slaves. You are not legally required to pay in some states.
Sorry but Sunday blue laws are religious discrimination. It’s just a day and businesses shouldn’t be restricted by a single religious sect. Gambling and substance abuse are actual public health issues.
I once observed ill-conceived online campaign to combat high gas prices by organizing a one-day boycott from purchasing gas. The intent was to send a message to oil suppliers. The problem is that not buying gas on Monday means drivers will just buy more gas on Tuesday -- delaying consumption instead of reducing it.
Blue laws are similar; they delay but do not reduce consumption. However, they have a fantastic pro-social side effect in that they allow workers in affected businesses a day off.
To this end, I would love to see a mid sized municipality experiment with raising minimum wage 10x one day a week and see what kind of culture develops around that.
Capital constantly needs new frontiers to exploit, and therefore must remove moral and social obstacles that stand in its way. Pseudo-prostitution has already been made widespread via platforms like OnlyFans, it's only a matter of time before in-the-flesh prostitution follows, as you said.
It's curious to me that so many progressives or soi-disant leftists are in favor of dissolving these types of moral and social traditions while being fervently anti-capitalist. It seems that they (meaning the subset who are always looking for new fenceposts to tear down) are in fact the shock troops of Capital.
The previous reality for sports betting was mostly illicit, often with some goon using physical violence or threat thereof for collections. This is not to say the new reality is an improvement.
The concrete example would be Canada "debanking" the truckers who protested in Ottawa for exercising their GOD given right to free speech. Another concrete example would be Germany having banks close accounts for the AFD and AFD related people.
1. the AfD thing was the decision of individual banks, not of the German government. Basically, in a free world companies can decide who they want to do business with.
2. the Canadian trucker "debanking" was quickly resolved because the Canadian justice system did their job and overruled the unlawful "emergency" government order
After being heard to exclaim "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?", Henry II subsequently explained that the 4 knights each came to their own individual decisions about how best to deploy their swords.
Being a democracy does not make countries immune from the phenomenon where under their own judgment, private actors decide with information provided to them in part by their own government, it’s more often than not in their best interest to be with them rather than against them.
What if the private company is "deciding under their own judgement because the VP's roomate from College is a chief of staff and they were told it would be really helpful if they decided in a beneficial way? We saw from the Twitter files that Twitter had an active relationship with members of the Democratic party and agents of the government to decide under their own judgement to ban or downrank certain people and ideas. This led to another concrete example of major outlets being effectively banned (The New York Post) due to the Hunter Biden Laptop issue. This behind the scene collusion is where the "they are a private company" line falls apart.
They are private companies. That doesn’t mean it isn’t in their best interest to maintain good relations with the people directing the nation’s sovereign power.
Never forget: sovereign power outranks corporate power. Corporations are better at making money. Sovereigns are better at violence.
The obvious answer here is "the one that you hate." Or, the Christian god of Abraham.
The preamble is not subtle: "Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law."
Now, legally/philosophically speaking, the Canadian concept of free-speech is laughably weak, as is all Canadian rights. Specifically, section one clearly states that rights are subject to "reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society". Effectively, if the government decides that you're "not reasonable," you have no rights.
The American system is quite clear about their rights being absolute and derived from God, where the idea is that the government is to uphold the existing divine rights afforded to all human beings, as opposed to the British system of which Canada (and the rest of the common-wealth is based off of) is a part of, where the government _grants_ the rights.
Another example of this is the British crown, in which authority is given by God. Many of the older cities derive their local authority in the same way. If I recall correctly, I believe that the city of London is so old that they actually mixed it up, and derive theirs from "time immemorial."
> The American system is quite clear about their rights being absolute and derived from God
No, the legal system is not; there are non-legal documents which claim both of those things, but being subject to “reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society” is very much how the US elgal system treats them. There is even, in federal Constitutional case law, an established, gradated system of tests (rational basis test, intermediate scrutiny, and strict scrutiny) depending on which right is at issue and for whom it is being limited as to whether there is sufficient justification.
The same people who will tell you it's wrong to debank truckers for blocking highways will also complain that we don't debank climate protestors who block highways.
All men, being created by GOD, have certain inalienable rights, like free speech. Whether a country infringes upon those rights or not is a different story. Germany has a history in authoritarianism that seems to persist.
AI is going to make, long term, Software Engineering more important. Getting requirements, user feedback, tests, product vision. These are key differentiators now.
If you can really get a good set of requirements, go and write all of your test cases out, and then throw it at an AI that will one shot it. Its perfect.
You're basically describing a waterfall process. That never worked in a pre-AI world and won't work in an AI world. Why? Because it's just not possible to gather absolutely every requirement up front. Software development has always worked well as an iterative process. You come up with better solutions as you go along and learn about the problems you're solving and make improvements. While AI will be able to one-shot a set of requirements, you'll miss out on those improvements because you'll have skipped over those phases.
I've tried this out. Even with relatively small applications and with spending hours reviewing the spec documents, there was always something I missed or something that wasn't quite right when seeing it live.
"Getting requirements, user feedback, tests, product vision", that also apply to iterations. Iterative processes are just a cascade of small waterfalls - either a scrum week or just a single agent session (define, prompt, plan, implement, verify)
But today you can do even better, with AI can do true waterfall by rewriting from scratch many times.
> But today you can do even better, with AI can do true waterfall by rewriting from scratch many times.
This does nothing other than ensure you end up in the "joy" of running a v0.0.1 product but for years on end instead of for a few months.
I hear this sort of thing a lot, and I can't help but internally translate it to "I've never had to take oncall for a product directly after a rewrite". It will be broken; not even because the AI is "wrong", but because the rewrite has new edge cases. No one rewrites a project to have the exact same edge cases. Those edge cases will become outages. No one will learn anything, because a month from now it will be rewritten and those edge cases will get swapped for something else; you can pick which edge of the CAP theorem you want to live on, but you can't pick "none of them".
Really I was thinking about exact example announced recently on HN: Postgres rewirte in Rust, it has 3 versions looks like each one generated from scratch https://github.com/malisper/pgrust
We have this concept in the western world of being presumed innocent until proven guilty. Something like a sexual assault accusation is typically taken extremely seriously (As it should), but this can lead it to being weaponized. Maybe a manager who is a rival for a position you covet, well a sexual assault accusation may make them conveniently go away.
Absolutely; though in context of the article, names aren't being named and nobody's being accused. It's literally a private-ish list of "stay away from/be careful around these people".
Police will only spend resources on investigations if the serverity of the crime is high enough or there is political force that allows more resources to be used than the crime is worth. False accusations do not carry the same serverity as the crime being claimed, for reasons that people are very open about.
We are however seeing more action from police since metoo, with gps data, Google and ai searches being taken from those who report sa as well as the accused. Phone data allows for some basic checks, like if the two people were in the same location at the time the assault occured. Ai and search data can also verify if people search for relevant information days before the event occurred.
California is the perfect picture of neoliberalism. They've privatized as many government functions as possible and, shocker, the public-private partnership has ended up with a LOT of waste and fraud.
Without very strong oversight, you cannot trust these private companies to not simply suck down every single dollar the government is willing to offer. A private business whose only client is governments will never ever be cost effective. They'll always charge as much as possible while offering the most minimal quality possible. That's how they increase their profit margins.
They made some Italian group into sanctioned terrorists because, get this, they specifically sought out and provided digital servers to terrorist organizations that aligned with their ideals. You seem to be leaving out that they did not generally host services for the general public, that they specifically only hosted services for organization they politically agree with after a thorough vetting process, AND those groups happened to be terrorist groups.
This is false. They sought out activists fighting fascism in Italy, and then provided hosting service to other likeminded freedom fighters.
Anyone can be a terrorist if “different opinion than the President of the United States” is all it takes to be labeled a “terrorist.” The label has lost all meaning.
reply