> Police now know they cannot use this method in the future, so suppressing the evidence in this particular case does not disincentivize anything, as long as its made clear that it cannot be done in the future.
It disincentivizes constitutional crapshoots where they throw stuff at the wall and see what sticks. It incentivizes using already known-good techniques where possible.
“This method” is also frequently scoped very narrowly. Next time they can get the data from a slightly different place, and it’s suddenly a new case. Or they filter the time or device info slightly differently. There are a bajillion permutations one could argue about in good faith.
How much of that is them being categorically not a felony and how much is prosecutorial discretion? 15 over probably qualifies for a reckless operation charge of some kind. Likewise, I wouldn’t be surprised if a fake sick day is wire fraud even if it never actually gets charged that way.
I would believe you’ve only committed two or three “name-brand” felonies, I’d be surprised if it were really that few under a maximally scoped prosecutor. Never borrowed antibiotics or a painkiller from a friend? Never decided it wasn’t worth the effort to file a tax document for $3 of dividends?
3 a day feels high, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it were double digits a year under an incredibly strict reading of the laws for the average person.
18 U.S. Code § 242, “Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States…”.
The judge erred in granting the warrant, the police violated the above statute. Them being unaware would be an affirmative defense, that does require admission of the above crime.
I doubt that fits in the usage model for those pricing plans. They're priced assuming it's inconvenient and less used because of it. I keep hearing they're losing money anyways, so despite being triple or quadruple dipped you're still paying less than it costs to run the models.
How would it cost Kagi anything, if I bring my own keys and all the costs are offloaded to my personal Google/ChatGPT account? I pay them the $10/month and get the Unlimited Pro access (but only to models I subsidize the cost of.) If anything it would save them money to offload my usage to my account vs using up some of their Flash tier quota.
It would be ideal for them for LLM access portability to let them offer higher end models and have the end consumer pay directly for the usage.
Id much rather pay for one AI License, and a small fee to each service I use, rather than paying a high tier AI Bonus price at every single service.
Then Google should offer Advanced Portable for $30 that includes being able to plug it into third party services. With some kind of policing to prevent it from being used as the entire backend to a service (for all users) itself.
Third party usage is too disparate for a single flat rate to make sense. Perplexity probably uses orders of magnitude more tokens than Kagi does (the former uses tokens on every search, the latter only does if you manually invoke the Assistant).
Then there's the disparity in how many third party services each user uses. Some will use one, some will use 50. Google could charge per integration, but that's basically the status quo.
Why would the number of integrations be the price point and not token tiers? I might want to connect my account to 100 services to test them, but only perform a couple uses each before forgetting about it.
I agree that makes sense, but it makes potential subscribers to the third parties nervous. I like Kagi Assistant because my payment is capped.
I get nervous plugging my pay-as-you-go API keys into random software because of the risk they rack up a $1000 bill doing something I wouldn’t have paid $20 for them to do.
The other three things are that economies of scale make it cheaper for Kagi to buy a bajillion tokens, Google et al don’t want to manage the customer side of things (what service ate how many tokens?), and service providers don’t want you seeing their “magic” in your console. Seems like there’s a lot of power in the system instruction side of things, and Perplexity probably doesn’t want you seeing their prompt.
How do you handle the transition? Either the changes aren’t retroactive and the transitional generations have to fund their own retirement and the grandfathered folks, or they are retroactive and the elderly are either destitute or again supported by people funding their own retirement.
It would be an immense cost on those transitional generations. It seems terrible for the economy. Workers now have to save more of their paychecks, but also need compounding growth on stocks to make retirement feasible.
This. 90% gives surprisingly large error budgets; that’s about 72 hours of downtime a month or 36.5 days a year.
I would guess most home labs are at or near 99% availability on hardware.
Scale is part of it too. I could pack my homelab into the car and take it to a friends house. They have the space, power service, and internet to accommodate me. A full data center doesn’t have that option, at least not for free-ish.
When you can buy 4 USFFs for the price of 1 new one, and run 2 have have a test one, and one for spares I'm not really sure what everyone is concerned about.
Enterprise, engineering, industrial grade equipment is the same high quality level, be it a server or a desktop meant for extreme environments.
Too many people are only purchasers of consumer grade equipment and would be surprised at what a huge difference the corporate/engineering/industry spec stuff is like.
I don’t think the Linux one is that stupid, but it might be me.
It’s not a “magic comment” because it doesn’t depend on the runtime. It specifies an interpreter to use, regardless of the language of the file.
Eg you can use #!/usr/bin/python for a Python script. I don’t find it worse than the existing alternative of making the file name magic and finding and interpreter based on that.
It's a comment ignored by the interpreter (bash, python, whatever).
The kernel just says "Hey! You can't execute a text file, you weirdo! I'll just read the very first line of the text file and if it happens to be a comment that points to another executable, I'll run that and pass it this file."
In the instance of cow vs dog or horse, it’s only cognitively dissonant if you try to reduce it to a context-free universal truth.
With context, it’s simply “we should not eat animals we keep as pets”, where “we” needs to be contextualized to the person and culture. I keep dogs as pets, and therefore should not eat them. Other people don’t keep dogs as pets and are free to eat them.
More generally, we shouldn’t kill things we love. Pets are loved, and shouldn’t be killed for food. Farmed animals are a means to an end, not an object of affection.
Other contexts apply too, for the pedantic. Starvation is a context that would make eating pets okay, so on and so forth.
A lot of morality is contextual. If a good friend is going through a break up, I should care and be supportive. If a stranger like Taylor Swift is going through a break up, I have no moral obligation to care or be supportive (though it would be kind to do so anyways). Morality is contextualized by my relationship to that person.
> Farmed animals are a means to an end, not an object of affection.
I've read a few accounts of farmers who didn't feel that way and talked about how sad they were sending the animals for slaughter, but they still did it.
There was a TV show ages ago where this guy decided to film one cow for it's life and then cook the meat. They showed the film and then he was just crying and the chef was starting to cook and be sympathetic.
Why? I'm not advocating for killing humans but before the modern era it was common for people to own chicken which the kids would love as pets but you gotta eat, so the beloved chicken would get killed and eaten.
Sounds more like a modern luxury rather than a ground truth.
You're missing GP's point. They are very clearly, explicitly stating that they do not feel emotionally comfortable, nor morally justified, with killing animals for food. It does not have to be a "context-free universal truth," it's the truth for them.
I think it becomes easier to just use a different fuel that is partially self-oxidizing. E.g. Top Fuel uses nitromethane rather than gasoline. Gasoline's stoichiometric ratio is 14.7:1 air:fuel, nitromethane is 1.7:1. Nitromethane in Top Fuel is already so volatile that the superchargers have to be wrapped in kevlar because the fuel blows up in them sometimes.
I think in theory it forces the middle class to buy American due to tariffs, which builds a more sustainable lower class at the expense of the middle and lower upper classes.
I think it’s still an overall net negative (dramatically) that sees us become overall poorer and less influential, but I would guess there will be more factory sorts of jobs.
The deadweight losses from this trade are staggering, several percents of gdp that'll mostly hit people who consume imports (mostly low-end goods so probably poor people)
If American made prices did not increase too match tariff adjusted foreign made prices that logic would hold. But we know from recent and not so recent history - American made prices some increase, even if they are not impacted at all.
It disincentivizes constitutional crapshoots where they throw stuff at the wall and see what sticks. It incentivizes using already known-good techniques where possible.
“This method” is also frequently scoped very narrowly. Next time they can get the data from a slightly different place, and it’s suddenly a new case. Or they filter the time or device info slightly differently. There are a bajillion permutations one could argue about in good faith.
reply