Alternatively the Supreme Court wants to issue an ruling that says invading people's privacy for profit, or to provide it to political parties, is legal and therefore not subject to lawsuits or legal challenges in future.
> Alternatively the Supreme Court wants to issue an ruling that (...)
According to the article, the supreme court actually declined to issue a ruling in this case. Curious if that causes you to update your beliefs in any manner.
That's nice of them (esp given their track record of shittiness). It's always seemed absurd to me how companies refuse to just make old games that they no longer sell available for free, or just leave them available for cheap purchase. I just don't understand "we refuse to make this available, even for money" just because something is old.
I can kind of understand the behavior in the case of non-game software, e.g if a company makes a tool to do X, and someone wants to do X, you want them to buy the new profitable version not the old one for cheap/free. But I just don't think that applies to games - even a "remake" that is literally just a graphics update (no gameplay, UI, or anything changes, just increased asset resolution) people prefer the updated graphics so will generally buy that when it becomes available, but in the absence of such an update the old game is not competing for new ones.
But you're literally using one now, with a forced arbitration agreement that you agreed to, is hackers new commenting literally more important to you than the other services you skip due to arbitration?
You started this thread with "I don't agree to forced arbitration", and we're discussing that you clearly have done so, for something as trivial as commenting.
The whole point is that it's not a matter of you not wanting to sue them now because you "don't pay them anything". What happens if HN/ycombinator does something? Say they offer a service to recommend hire/non-hire for companies based on your comment history, and they for arbitrary/capricious reasons always say "do not hire" (maybe your comment about not agreeing to arbitration agreements), maybe they use "AI" and their service reports you as a "republican democrat homophobic christian anti-christmas woke ..." (e.g. all the keywords that would be needed to ensure that at least one of them would trigger an auto rejection from any company).
The fact that you agreed to arbitration, means you can't sue them in a fair court, and you can't use a class action with all the other victims (class actions exist because the "winning" from a single lawsuit like this is generally low enough to render it infeasible, that's the entire reason for arbitration and anti-class action terms).
The fact the you agreed in the context of commenting on a free service is not relevant at that point.
This is like the Disney "you agreed to arbitration for Disney streaming so you can't sue us for food allergy in a restaurant" (to be fair, as far as I can make out Disney was not responsible in that case, but using the Disney tv arbitration term was clearly bad PR but if they _were_ responsible would be just applicable and just as BS)
I think it’s more easy to consider when you think about what is in the bill. Like do you really want them invoicing the company that hit you with “reconstructing their wiener”, etc information.
This is not quite true - if your insurance policy does not cover the full amount you can be on the hook.
Of course if you don’t have insurance you’re kind of screwed, or your insurance doesn’t cover the full recovery costs you have to pay the medical bills and get stuck with them if the responsible party is under insured and lacks assets.
Accident created expenses seem like one of those things where if someone else is responsible for the costs you should be able to simply transfer all subsequent costs to them, rather than being stuck with bankruptcy or life long debt if they can’t afford to repay you.
Honestly there should be a transitive debt mechanism - but companies won’t like that because currently they can just force people to settle for some minimal payout knowing that they aren’t on the hook for anything that comes up down the road.
> if your insurance policy does not cover the full amount you can be on the hook.
If "your" means the person who got hit, it's not their insurance that's on the hook, it's the insurance of the person who hit them.
Yes, that person's insurance will have a limit, after which your own insurance coverage for uninsured or under-insured drivers would kick in. And if that also hits a limit, then you would have to sue the party that hit you for damages to get back anything you had to pay over the limit.
> you have to pay the medical bills and get stuck with them if the responsible party is under insured and lacks assets.
In this situation also, yes, once you were over the limit of your own uninsured or under-insured driver coverage, you would have to go to court to get the burden put on the responsible party, so that if that party were judgment proof, it would be the medical provider's problem, not yours.
> if someone else is responsible for the costs you should be able to simply transfer all subsequent costs to them
You can do this, but yes, it does take a lawsuit once you're over whatever limits insurance will cover, as above.
As a non-American, accident created expenses seem like one of those things where the state should cover the personal injury costs which helps to make healthcare cost at least half the price, leads to better outcomes, and avoids people being bankrupted simply because of their health.
> accident created expenses seem like one of those things where the state should cover the personal injury costs
As far as an individual who gets injured by someone else is concerned, "the state" is just another form of insurance. I'm not sure the state is any more reliable as an insurance provider than private companies; indeed, it might often be less so since it is subject to political pressures that private insurance providers are not.
I can see exactly how this happened: the ambulance drivers picked up the cyclist and drove to the hospital, which requires them to do a whole bunch of paperwork to ensure correct hospital billing, correct accounting for drugs etc.
I would assume at that point computers took over and led to the billing. In an ideal world you’d say “well obviously the target shouldn’t have been billed by the ambulance”, but I’m guessing their infrastructure does not have a built in mechanism for “we are the cause of this trip being needed”.
After that the rest of the lawsuit is likely just the only mechanism to get correctly compensated (the insurance company pays the hospital - if the victim had insurance - then goes to the ambulance co to get them to pay, which is via a “lawsuit”, probably with no intent to go to court, just that’s the mechanism of action. The ambulance company also probably has insurance, but often such insurance is contingent on being sued, because of course).
The large amount is not actually very large: ignoring all the immediate bills I’m sure lawsuit payouts have tax obligations, depending on severity of injuries recovery can be a very long time if ever, with increased costs through out life, and then you are always starting high with the expectation of a counter offer for settlement.
The reason for this is very simple. Section 230 means you can't target a corporation that hosts content by other people, for content you dislike.
For example: currently if someone doesn't want to see someone posting "objectionable" content - you have to identify them, then sue them. That's a problem if there's messages you don't like but you can't make illegal. But if instead you can sue the host, you can just keep suing the host, and the host eventually starts disallowing that content on its services, even if it is legal. Like they already do for adult content.
But the incoming administration has stated that content they believe should be illegal is anything that says LGBT people have the right to exist. You see this with their consistent bans on library books, their attempts to reclassify books as fiction if they can't block them on "harmful" content, etc.
We can see that this is nothing about ensuring an ability for people to hold corporations accountable to people, but specifically to enable censorship: because the proposed removals of protection from prosecution for content they host is the only place that proposed changes increase corporate liability. Every other proposed change removes the ability hold corporations accountable, removing worker protection, removing or hamstringing the agencies responsible for regulating safety, and removing or limiting the liability for any accidents, disasters, or dumping.
>The reason for this is very simple. Section 230 means you can't target a corporation that hosts content by other people, for content you dislike.
No. Section 230 means you can't target the proprietor of a website/online property (whether it's a corporation, some other sort of organization or an individual) for content posted on those properties by third parties.
Revoking/removing Section 230 would allow the biggest corporations to continue hosting third-party speech, but would stop pretty much everyone else from doing so, as they likely can't afford to be sued by every crackpot who doesn't like what other folks say.
>It's not even that. You can host third-party speech without Section 230, you just also gain liability from moderating that content.
And if you don't moderate, your site turns into a cesspit of spam, illegal and disgusting stuff. Like the chans/kuns. Although even those sites are moderated to remove illegal stuff like CSAM.
So no. Not moderating isn't really a viable option if you want folks to actually post relevant/reasonable third-party content on your internet property.
I tell you what. Go ahead and implement a Pixelfed or Mastodon (or Lemmy or whatever) instance and open it up for anyone to sign up and use. Then don't moderate it in any way and see what becomes of it.
Assuming you aren't arrested for hosting CSAM, you'll likely find that your site is filled with spam and offensive garbage. So much so that the normal folks won't want to use it.
I get that they’re selling huge amounts of hardware atm, but I feel like this is entirely due to the hype train that is BS generators.
I have not encountered any of the aggressively promoted use cases to be better than anything they replaced, and all the things people seem to choose to use seem of questionable long term value.
I can’t help but feel that this nonsense bubble is going to burst and a lot of this value is going to disappear.
In document recognition they’re going to replace everything that came before. A couple of years ago you needed a couple of ML experts to setup, train and refine models that could parse through things like contracts, budgets, invoices and what not to extract key info that needed to be easily available for the business.
Now you need someone semi-proficient in Python who knows enough about deployment to get a local model running. Or alternatively skills to connect to some form of secure cloud LLM like what Microsoft peddles.
For us it meant that we could cut the work from 6-12 months to a couple of weeks for the initial deployment. And from months to days for adding new document types. It also meant we need one inexpensive employee for maybe 10% or their total time, where we needed a couple of expensive full time experts before. We actually didn’t have the problem with paying the experts, the real challenge was finding them. It was almost impossible to attract and keep ML talent because they had little interest in staying with you after the initial setups, since refining, retuning and adding new document types is “boring”.
As far as selling hardware goes I agree with you. Even if they have the opportunity to sell a lot right now it must be a very risk filled future. Local models can do quite a lot on very little computation power, and it’s not like a lot of use cases like our document one need to process fast. As long as it can get all our incoming documents done by the next day, maybe even by next week, it’ll be fine.
I mean I’ve not had any problems with whatever the macOS built in one is, but document recognition is a a tiny part of the industry and isn’t involved in the hype bubble at all.
The stuff with Python->traing->??->$$$ is what I don’t buy:
First: the “AI” stuff is “generate content with no obvious financial value to anyone”, chat bots (which no one I know actually seems to want), or “maybe better predictions”.
Second: the “person can do X with AI with less training” etc is not a value of AI, it’s just a product of improved libraries and UI for putting things together. It doesn’t mean the thing they’re doing with AI has any value outside of bandwagonning.
Third: the reason for AI start ups is just that training costs a tonne of capital - and VCs love throwing cash at bandwagons so there’s a pile of “AI” startups, all of which offering essentially the same thing below cost in the hopes that they’ll magically find a profit model.
Finally: there’s already near enough on device processing power on phones for most actual practical uses of “AI” so the need for massive gpu rigs will start to tank especially once the hype train dies off and people start asking what is actually useful in the giant AI startup buzz.
Each of these things is going to result in the valuation bubble for nvidia collapsing. Mercifully I don’t think there’s any real harm in the nvidia valuation bubble (congrats to the folk who made well on their RSUs!), but I still don’t think the valuation has significant longevity.
Look just because the CEO of the US military contractor spacex has documented illegal communications with the dictator of a country at war with an ally, and a multi decade history of interference, and spy craft in the US, doesn't mean there's anything to worry about. After all, we just had an election where the law-and-order party got a convicted fraudster and rapist with a multimillion dollar legal ruling against him, a multi-decade history of fraud, documented bribery, nepotism, basic corruption, and outright treason elected as president on a platform off targeting minorities, removing fundamental civil rights, threats of violence and abuse of law enforcement.
There's no reason to worry. After all, as long as you are a white dude with an AR15, and self worth based on being a bigoted bully, you will be fine. At least for now. Make sure you tow the line though.
This sort of holier-than-thou moral take and self-delusion is the reason Democrats lost. It’ll be interesting to see if this losing take disappears because it got summarily defeated, and what new narrative the new-left adopts next.
He literally listed a bunch of provable facts, then suggested reasonable concern about folks’ safety. This isn’t a game. People’s lives are at stake here.
It’s interesting that you don’t even attempt to counter any of the points GP raised.
Instead, you Respond to Tone [0]
Once upon a time, Republicans had principles. As recently as 2015, they still often pretended to.
When Republicans had principles, we could argue over which side we agreed with, which side was correct.
Now, the Republicans have abandoned the principles that America was founded on.
Now, you don’t even pretend like principles matter. You don’t even pretend like you need to address any of these points GP raised.
It would be extremely damaging to GP’s argument if you would demonstrate that any one of the dozen or so points that he raised was a mischaracterization of the truth.
Apparently you can’t do that, because instead, you call GP self-deluded and complain about his “take”.
Literally just Ad Hominem [0] and Responding to Tone [0].
reply