> All that data collected without due process… has to be treated as tainted.
Maybe I’m naive, but I don’t see why it can’t be collected but not read until a warrant comes through. Similar to gmail data only being accessible by the police with a valid warrant. It seems like that would be enough to avoid egregious issues (fishing expeditions, disgruntled exes, etc.).
could we make this serious criminal
offense with mandatory penalties such that no sane person would ever attempt it or this no longer possible in our society?
This is why I don't think the dataset should exist.
If the dataset does exist, then everyone (including the brownshirts) should have equal access to it, via due process. That should include all the data (even data about the brownshirts).
One litmus test: There must be a near-infinite amount of digital evidence that could be used to prosecute current ICE officers.
The way the system is currently setup, that data can only be used for blackmail or to selectively remove non-cooperating people from political office down the road (hint: the worst of the current ICE officers will eventually be the only ones with access to the data, and they'll be the ones doing the removing).
In a better system, any ICE victim would have the ability to expose the officers' crimes + successfully press for criminal charges.
That was a leap. However, yes, to prevent nazis we need to defend individual rights to privacy at the expense of corporate/government property and corporate/government free speech.
Throwing Hilter and his political party and followers for beliefs would create more Hilters. The martyr is a powerful symbol that may have won more support in France and England where they may not have gone against Germany after invading Poland.
Jail your enemies is a failed strategy that turns you into the enemy.
They do break backwards compatibility at edition boundaries, but if they do that too much without a good enough reason they could end up with a python2->python3 situation, with low uptake.
I’m having a hard time understanding you here. Are you saying that since rust is a good language for AI to write code in, it says something about the (lack of) power of AI, that it wasn’t what found the bug? Because the logic there seems twisted: “F1 drivers, the biggest users of F1 cars, almost never make improvements to F1 engines”.
Sorry my question was “what does using an LLM do that ublock doesn’t?”
I see you’re saying that it obviates the needs for manual central curation. But surely we would move to (stronger) LLMs doing the curation centrally while using existing infrastructure, before trying to insert a LLM round-trip before every page fetch.
I am not the same user but I agree with their premise.
Centralised curation will have its time but marketers will move to systems which are unique to each visitor. Think 30 second ads which are unique to each visitor, built on their shopping history, social media comments, search, etc. These systems are currently prohibitively expensive to build and deploy, but they won't be with cheap LLMs. YouTube is already experimenting with ads inside streams, for example. Those are very difficult or impossible to deterministically block. Sites will get very good at agentically evading deterministic adblocking software. This is where local LLMs will shine. Consider the case of YouTube in-steam ads. The LLM could probabilistically determine that the current frames are ads (even though this particular ad is 100% unique to that visitor, and has never appeared in any ad database before), then black out the section of the screen/audio while it plays. Or fast forward until it finds where the segment ends. All in real-time, locally determined.
It does become a strange cat and mouse game in the future, but I feel quite strongly that ad blocking will win. Users will have intelligent, autonomous systems on their devices which can curate and block content as desired.
In all seriousness, far too many people think "throw AI at it" will solve every tech problem. AI remains inefficient, power hungry and mercurial. Replacing an adblocker or firewall with a constantly-running AI is as efficient and useful as rocket motors on a car.
No, I think they had it right. Your "inverted invented here syndrome" would be the original NIH syndrome, in which people prefer building their own version of everything.
I’m not sure why they don’t just open the source (are they planning on monetizing it?), but GitHub has a convenient issue tracker that everyone already has a user account for.
No plans on monetizing it! Just made it for fun and have uploaded the full codebase now. I was using that repo for hosting the macOS download and had forgotten to host the codebase on it too! Sorry about that.
If you want to read it as one would normally, where the X axis is the input variable, you could read it as "For a given quantity of demand, what is the maximum price the market can sustain?" So if you want to sell higher quantities of oil, the price has to decrease. The supply side is the opposite direction since costs go up as quantities go up (ignoring efficiencies of scale).
Since the graph is without units, the only relevant of their positions are the signs of the slopes, and that you need a higher price to supply oil at any given quantity (hence the Straight closed" line being higher on the graph).
> the U.S. and Israeli attacks on Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz
Am I the only one who finds this disingenuous? It's like saying: "the police's arrival to the bank robbery took someone hostage." The police's arrival may have triggered the hostage taker's actions but it was still their actions. It's like the author let their dislike of Trump get in the way of accuracy.
It's easy enough to argue that the war is a disaster without being misleading about who did what.
This is not police and robbers. US is not world police nor the good side here. But they do still have enough people aware of global politics and understanding cause-and-effect who are in advisory and decision making roles, that this chain of events would've been pointed out as very likely. Saudi Arabia had a 1200km cross-country pipeline built in 1980s just for the occasion of a political crisis closing the straight and needing an alternative route for export, so it's not even the first time this issue happened in the current gov's average lifespan.
In short, this is basic cause and effect. We can easily say the attacks closed the straight.
I wasn't trying to talk about the morality of the US's actions (not that the police are inherently moral), only point how it seems purposefully misleading to remove the direct actor from the equation.
If you want, we can change the moral insinuations. "The bully hit himself in the face." No, the poor kid being teased hit the bully in the face.
And in fact, rhetorical tools like that make it easier for people who disagree with the authors stance to discard the author's argument on the whole. "This person either doesn't understand the situation well enough, or is willingly lying to me. Why would I listen to them."
In your example, the bank robbers started the situation.
Who started the war again? Was it Iran that started bombing the US unprovoked, or the US that started bombing Iran unprovoked?
Trump said he started the war because Iran was about to nuke the United States, despite months before saying their nuclear programs were totally obliterated, and his own DNI stating there was no evidence Iran had actually restarted their nuclear programs. Once again, who is the but-for cause of our current state of affairs?
It is absolutely not misleading to point the blame of the current state of affairs at Trump. We wouldn't be in this mess if it wasn't for his extreme incompetence. We didn't have to start this war, its his war of choice. If you stick your hand in a blender and turn it on you don't blame the blender for your mangled hand. The Straight being closed was an obvious out come of his actions, he was made aware of it, and he started the war anyway despite the US not needing to be involved. He himself campaigned on not getting involved in scenarios exactly like this.
It’s totally fair to point the first domino being his. In fact, most of your comment seems to be arguing against a position I don’t hold. However, unlike a blender, Iran has agency. You cannot rewrite history because you don’t like the actors.
> the U.S. and Israeli attacks on Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz
Trump's choices and actions directly led to the situation we're in, right? As in, if he didn't choose to start an ill-planned war based off lies, we wouldn't be here, correct? Is there any part of the above that's actually incorrect or untrue? Iran wouldn't have just closed the Strait for giggles would they? So why is the Straight closed again? Because Trump is a gullible moron or is deeply compromised by Israel. Or potentially both!
> Iran has agency
Trump has had agency as well throughout this whole thing, and continues to be involved in an illegal war he chose to start on the other side of the planet. The US doesn't need to continue to be involved, it didn't need to start the war in the first place.
The first example was just the first that came to mind. The second was chosen in the opposite direction because that poster didn’t like the unintentional insinuation that the US was in the moral right; I chose something that has the opposite framing to show that it holds independently of who’s wrong.
yeah, I get your point - technically Iran closed the strait, not the US. But that's equally disingenuous. The closing of the strait was the result of a chain of events (a short chain at that) which originated with the US bombing Iran.
In your analogy, the crims performed the burglary. That lead to the police arriving. That lead to the police closing the street. You can argue that the crims "didn't close the street", and sure, they didn't. But the street is closed purely as a result of their actions.
Maybe I’m naive, but I don’t see why it can’t be collected but not read until a warrant comes through. Similar to gmail data only being accessible by the police with a valid warrant. It seems like that would be enough to avoid egregious issues (fishing expeditions, disgruntled exes, etc.).
reply