>If Reddit could grow to the size it had with management that was harmless at best, what could it do if Steve came back?
Harmless at best wasn't enough, so let's bring in actively harmful!
I'm being hyperbolic but Reddit doesn't really seem to have grown in any meaningful way for a long time; frankly, it has regressed in many ways since Steve has regained the reins.
Steve is operating with more info than I am, so maybe all his decisions are sound from a business perspective, but as a user I've only seen Reddit become less useful, less novel, less active, and less enjoyable. As a result I use it less, and I know others use it less as well. There is no real moat to Reddit outside of it's user base, if they continue to push too hard I don't see how they survive.
It's only arbitrary if you make it arbitrary. A strict ban on "military and warfare," may prevent some relatively innocuous projects from reaching fruition, but I find that to be an insignificantly small & significantly worthwhile cost to pay considering the flip side.
I understand the idealism, but the realistic alternative is that the US government abstains while other governments use the technology freely. Not sure how that's a better scenario, in a practical sense.
It's probably why OpenAI decided to remove the restriction.
>migrant children show up and work and just lie about their age or supply forged documentation, which is impossible to verify for the company or any US agency.
Except it is possible, obviously, as the Department of Labor ultimately discovered the child labor. Auditing isn't simply looking over some spreadsheets, I've had to audit inventory before back in the day and we had to go to the warehouse and verify actual inventory. These auditors aren't doing their due diligence because these auditors aren't hired to find any issues, they're hired to provide a passed audit. The solution is that these audits shouldn't be privatized, or significantly heftier fines need to be levied to align incentives.
I agree that the audits should not be privatized and we should probably increase the number of Department of Labor employees by an order of magnitude or two, but how do you propose a DoL employee verify the age of a Guatemalan national who says he's 18 but is really 15 and has paperwork to "prove" it?
This is actually a very hard problem to solve. Even some American citizens don't have any government paperwork documenting their age, but fortunately the number is very low and they typically belong to groups that would not be applying to work in factories anyway.
> Except it is possible, obviously, as the Department of Labor ultimately discovered the child labor.
The article sadly did not go into detail about how they did it - presumably they discovered some blatant or documented discrepancies. It says only that they were "severe."
No it’s not have you heard of e verify? https://www.e-verify.gov/ If you make employers use it or dole out real meaningful fines the problem would mostly go away
Yes, that would mostly fall under “aggressively prosecute companies relying on migrant workers” as I said, except for the loophole of legal migrants who lied to the US government about their age in order to get jobs like this. It does ideally disrupt employers hiring undocumented minors, but it doesn’t solve the problem of a 15 year old showing up without paperwork and obtaining employment authorization as an “18” year old and therefore passing e-verify.
I suppose if they could somehow get documents saying they are 18 when they are actually 15 nobody would know all the paperwork is clean. It’s not great but there would be no scandal because there would be no way to prove the kid was 15 when all the legal papers said otherwise. Seems like a real edge case tho
But that's largely the case the article is about: migrant children coming to the US and claiming they're old enough to work these jobs and these hours. You don't have to "somehow" get documents - if a refugee shows up without papers and tells the US government they're 18, how is the US government going to know they're lying? They're issued documents reflecting whatever they said. When the article mentions "dubious" and "fraudulent" documents, this is a major part of what they're talking about. (The other part involves contradictory documentation, and just plain fake IDs.)
"People" will know because they often don't keep it a secret (examples cited in article), and obviously the families know, but auditors and government agencies don't have a way to actually prove it in many cases, unless it's egregious or there's contradictory documentation.
It’s disingenuous to frame using data to train a model as a “view,” of that data. The simple cases are the easy ones, if ChatGPT completely rips a NYT article then that’s obviously infringement; however, there’s an argument to be made that every part of the LLM training dataset is, in part, used in every output of that LLM.
I don’t know the solution, but I don’t like the idea that anything I post online that is openly viewable is automatically opted into being part of ML/AI training data, and I imagine that opinion would be amplified if my writing was a product which was being directly threatened by the very same models.
All I can ever think about with how ML models work is that they sound an awful lot like Data Laundering schemes.
You can get basically-but-not-quite-exactly the copyrighted material that it was trained on.
Saw this a lot with some earlier image models where you could type in an artists name and get their work back.
The fact that AI models are having to put up guardrails to prevent that sort of use is a good sign that they weren't trained ethically and they should be paying a ton of licensing fees to the people whose content they used without permission.
>You can get basically-but-not-quite-exactly the copyrighted material that it was trained on.
You can do exactly the same with a human author or artist if you prompt them to. And if you decide to publish this material, you're the one liable for breach of copyright, not the person you instructed to create the material.
Not if that person is a trillion dollar corporation. If they're a business that's regularly stealing content and re-writing it for their customers that business is gonna go down. Sure, a customer or two may go down with them but the business that sells counterfeit works to spec is not gonna last long.
I have a few friends in the trades, all part of a union, and none of them would echo this sentiment.
It's also funny because this is the exact same sentiment people complain about with the corporate world, where it's more about who you know than what you know.
Trade unions and Employment unions are very different.
That said, i suspect the parent story was from years ago, most likely late 90's or early 00's when that type of thing was common
Today most unions are very very very hard up to find anyone willing to work everyone that wants a job, and can actually follow instructions, and show up on time (harder than it sounds it seems) gets a job right now...
I can only hope to one day build something as meaningful as "Fontly Color Fonts." Alas, there can only be so many geniuses capable of sculpting meaning out of the chaos that is the aether.
Then the author doesn't really understand what's happening or isn't making much sense.
There isn't anything, as far as I can tell, structure specific that caused this ousting. If it was a normal for-profit structure with a board of directors this same event could have played out.
What is surprising to Sam, and any casual observer, is this looks to be a massive overstepping of the board. By all accounts it looks like Sam was excelling in his role, and to fire him for seemingly no reason with no real transition plan is incompetence and should be unexpected from any serious company.
My apologies - I don't really disagree with anything you're saying, but it's just not really relevant to the comment I was replying to (one in which the commenter apparently misunderstood the article).
I think a more fitting analogy would be walking into a store to sit down and cool off with no intent of buying anything. You are "taking" passive resources (air conditioning, space, potentially employee attention). Would you consider that to be unethical?
Personally, I don't believe ad blocking is unethical because I don't believe the ways in which advertisers collect and sell their data is ethical.
If you could loiter in a store and automatically bypass seeing anything being sold there then that would be unethical. Some places even have rules against loitering because they just don't have capacity to serve as a hang out spot for all the people living nearby.
I know you're getting a bunch of suggestions but I'm going to throw in my stupid simple approach that I've loved.
First, if you don't like the texture, as others have suggested, go with steel cut oats or whole oats (I always get Quaker whole oats, cheaper than a lot of the steel cut oat brands).
I like my oats savory. I pretty much eyeball everything but I do about a little more than half a cup, add water until I can barely feel it through the top of the oats, microwave for 2 minutes. Then add a little bit of butter and salt, mix it up, and you've got yourself a breakfast.
I couldn't disagree more. You can easily twist his letters to his son to create this narrative. If you read it as a whole his message isn't at all anti-marriage, he was a devout Christian who believed wholeheartedly in marriage. His message was that marriage takes sacrifice, faith, and a conscious effort (in his opinion specifically on the side of the man). It's a bit Kierkegaardian.
Harmless at best wasn't enough, so let's bring in actively harmful!
I'm being hyperbolic but Reddit doesn't really seem to have grown in any meaningful way for a long time; frankly, it has regressed in many ways since Steve has regained the reins.
Steve is operating with more info than I am, so maybe all his decisions are sound from a business perspective, but as a user I've only seen Reddit become less useful, less novel, less active, and less enjoyable. As a result I use it less, and I know others use it less as well. There is no real moat to Reddit outside of it's user base, if they continue to push too hard I don't see how they survive.