In my academic career, I had one instance of reviewers actually reading a paper. Otherwise -- accept or reject -- the comments made clear the paper had never been actually read.
Retractions are non-existent, even with clearly proven academic malpractice.
I am sorry for that. Fortunately, this does not resemble my experience (electrical engineering/digital signal processing).
Usually I got quite critical comments (positive and/or negative). Yes, sometimes a reviewer does not write even a single sentence before giving an average score to complete the review process. But this has not been the regular case.
And as a reviewer for a conference paper of 4 to 6 pages, I usually assigned 1 to 3 hours to read it (journal papers: 1 to 2 days) and to give comments.
Curiously, the one paper which was actually reviewed was in an IEEE journal and about filter design.
Most of the rest of my papers were in completely different disciplines.
It was an awesome paper -- in my mind, groundbreaking -- but I'm not convinced anyone beyond the reviewers ever read it. I see about a dozen citations which popped up years later, clicked through a few, and they were inane.
Problem is it was work in a very, very classical field, alongside Butterworth, Chebyshev, and similar, and while quite fundamental, and with many applications, there is no contemporary research there.
My most popular papers were mostly rather.... random.
Depends on journal. Predatory and low tier journals that's true for, but at higher tiers it is far less common. You still get the occasional lazy reviewer, but typically they wont be asked back if the editor isn't lazy as well. The system certainly has its flaws though.
Retractions do happen as well, especially if it's clearly proven malpractice. I've been behind 2 retractions so far, but it has never (in my experience) happened at the "contact corresponding author and seek clarification" stage of escalation. Typically it requires escalation to the journal itself.
There are nice houses in that price range around Otwock, Piaseczno, and similar.
1.5M-2M is sort of the price range for something big, nice, and not car-dependent right now. You can find things less nice below that.
If you're willing to go as far out as Nieporęt or Grodzisk Mazowiecki, there's a ton of things below that. It's certainly not car-dependent; lots of stores nearby, but it is a decently long train ride if you want to come into Warsaw more frequently, at least if you mind working on a train.
If you don't mind car-dependent, it's a lot cheaper than that. Places outside of Otwock, near Park Kampinoski, and similar can be had for a song.
Most crimes require intent. Some do not, but without intent, still tend to be lesser crimes. For example, killing someone through negligence (the zip tie example) is still a crime, but manslaughter, and not murder.
Digital trespass, intent is generally required, but the definition of "intent" varies by circuit in rather interesting ways. I don't think OpenAI could be prosecuted criminally under current US laws due to those wrinkles (which is a problem with current US laws).
Oddly enough, there are plenty of European countries with lower taxes holistically, higher entitlements, and lower debt / deficit levels.
As far as I can tell, the solution isn't nearly that hamfisted. It requires:
- Reinstituting rule-of-law (not just Trump; the whole system)
- Instituting basic proper management of funds
In Europe, I can walk into a government agency and be done in 15 minutes, with a smile from the administrator, for what would take months of fighting in the US. If a part of the government is breaking a rule, I can point them to it, and they'll follow it. Courts are slow, but follow clear laws; I don't see black robe syndrome. And police follow and enforce laws.
US used to be closer to that too; it actually led the world in good governance for much of history.
That's hard work of diving in and cleaning up every piece of the administration. There's no stomach for that. Until there is, the deficit will keep going up.
> Reinstituting rule-of-law (not just Trump; the whole system)
It's probably more correct to just say instituting. While Trump has certainly turned the rule of law on its head, it's a not-so-secret secret that the law has never really applied to the rich and powerful. If we're already going to be making fixes, we should make a real effort to honor the rule of law.
That would necessarily include things like reforming bail and fines so they scale properly with ability to pay, especially in the case of corporate fines.
Trump is a symptom of a trend which has been going for about 40 years, and accelerated in the past 20 years.
It's system-wide.
It's not that rule-of-law was ever perfect in the US, but it was ahead of the world, and ahead of where it is today. Probably, it peaked a little bit after cases like Brown v. Board through around 1990.
From 1800-1900, there were more serious issues than today, obviously, but the baseline of comparison globally were largely dictators, kings, warlords, ..., as well as fledgling systems like the French Revolution and the Haitian Revolution.
1900-1960, the baseline was 2nd and 3rd world.
Today, the US is no longer in the lead, and to the contrary, towards the tail end of democratic developed countries. That's also a bigger club than in 1950.
<-- This is the problem, but it falls well short of singularity.
If ML + robots can be produced for fewer resources than it takes to feed and house a human, then no reasonable amount of human labour will be sufficient to pay for robots+compute.
We may have a bust, with broad overcapacity and cheap, distributed ML compute. We may have the paperclip problem, where datacenters and fabs are taking over all reasonable resources and humans squeezed out. We may have everything in between.
My AI is regularly solving master's thesis level, and sometimes Ph.D thesis level problems for the purpose of, e.g. routine tasks like filling out random paperwork.
It's been very odd.
I'd only assume Nadella has access to more advanced models than I do, just as much as I have more advanced models than my relatives.
I feel like I'm missing some context. A lot of context.
Whose loyalty test? How?
I mostly heard "super intelligence" a long, long time ago in the context of work on AI / philosophy / futurism which, honestly, sounded pretty detached until the current deep learning sprint, and now sounds pretty prophetic.
Right, and humiliation rituals are not just about the authoritarian's ego, they do damage that the authoritarian exploits.
People who comply scar their reputation and trustworthiness, so that it's harder for them to build any alliance against the authoritarian in the future, ex: "We all know Bob lied to keep his job... But if they threaten his job again, doesn't that mean he might lie to us too?"
Right. It’s absolutely crucial to understand what is going on here.
He has a litany of weaknesses, failings and shortcomings, but he is an international expert at humiliating, suborning and breaking people. His mendacity is very nearly unparalleled.
> “The bill would hold any officer, manager, partner, beneficial owner, or member of a shell company personally liable for any unpaid taxes, and any interest and penalties on those taxes, the nonpayment of which may constitute a crime, due on the purchase of a vehicle, vessel, or aircraft.”
Is dumb.
You want comprehensive enforcement with reasonable penalities.
I don't think it will hold up in federal courts. This seems to apply to cars that the company officer who lives and drives in Montana as well. If this only applies to cars used more than 50% in CA is would hold up. Of course truck drivers who mostly don't drive in CA but that is home may find an out with that plan.
The core of the law, ie who is expected to register their car in CA and what state sales taxes need to be paid has already been in place for years and likely already challenged. This is just a modifier to address a particular loophole.
As long as nothing about this crosses state lines (ie they’re not trying to regulate out of state businesses or property) there’s not a lot to go on. Several states have taken similar steps to close this loophole. Famously the YouTuber whistlindiesel got arrested in Tennessee for this and the case is still pending
Details matter and the article may have them wrong, but my reading is this accidentally covers out of state cars as well. I'm not going to look up the law to see who is right though.
The cars are registered in MT but they’re under CA jurisdiction if they are primarily driven here. That’s the literal loophole. CA is not trying to force people to pay CA registration and sales tax on cars kept and used primarily out of state.
That is the intent of course. However it is really easy to write a law that missing important details and so despite the intent cover all cars regardless of where they are used.
> If anyone running the business is a California resident (by the updated definition outlined above), then the whole business is a California resident, and any assets (including Lamborghinis and Bugattis) held in the state are subject to California taxation.
I'm relying on the paraphrasing in article rather than the text of the law itself, but this says that it only applies to assets held in the state.
Paying tax on a vehicle driven in a state is not unreasonable. And holding the executives of a shell/numbered/privately-held/tax-dodging organization liable for taxes owed is not draconian.
Gas leaf blowers are a menace to society that should not be allowed in any urban or suburban area. (If you want to use one on your farm or whatever, go for it.)
The ban is useless because the only way to enforce it is to catch it in the act (in my town). Basically impossible. So it is a ban that could be enforced (other ways) but instead is just a suggestion - and not one that most people follow because there are almost no repercussions.
There are some unavoidable sources of noise, so I'm not sure a blanket noise restriction is going to work. If someone is doing home renovation and the contractor needs to run a saw for a while, it's just going to be loud. Sometimes someone needs to jackhammer up a slab of concrete, or chip up tree pruning debris. Etc.
But gas leaf blowers are easily replaced by a much less neighbor-hostile alternative.
A month ago, I heard a lot of very loud jackhammer noises at 2AM. I got up and went out to investigate. A crew was jackhammering up the street. The foreman saw me and came by to apologize. The water main had broken and water was flooding the street. If they let it wait until morning, a lot of erosion damage would have been.
I told him I appreciate the crew coming out and fixing it right away.
If it is a blanket leaf blower ban, that is indeed asinine. However, I will gladly support a ban on two stroke engines for leaf blowers the same way I support requiring drivers to wear seatbelts.
> If it is a blanket leaf blower ban, that is indeed asinine.
Uh … okay, it isn't immediately obvious to me why that would be. My landlords insist on (literally) weekly leaf blowing, regardless of season, and so every Thursday the air outside the apartment is quite literally unbreathable, as it is slaked with dust and exhaust, and literally unbreathable inside if I were to open a window (i.e., living here, I have to remember to always close the windows prior to Thursday). Not to mention the sound.
Banning the gas ones fixes a portion of the problem, I suppose.
I don't think I'd care as much if the cadence was something reasonable, like monthly. One bad apple spoils the bunch.
There is no such thing as “random” enforcement. Laws built this way end up getting abused against minorities (racial/ethnic or political), the poor, or personal and political enemies.
I think it's a good, analogous, contemporary example of how RMS tends to be misunderstood.
In this context, his comments tend to be:
a) Correct, if you read them precisely (which is how RMS writes -- precisely)
b) Horrible, if you read them with the subtext implied in mainstream culture (which is how people read what RMS writes)
That combination results in "with the terrorists" in 2001, "with Epstein" in 2026, and a lot of similar things in between.
Coincidentally, it's highly unlikely Minsky did anything wrong. All the people thrown under the bus by MIT were either the people who acted ethically and came forward or, like Minsky, were dead. All the people who did unethical things didn't come forward, and are in the Epstein files. Not all the MIT folks in the Epstein files did unethical things, but many presumably did....
The MIT transparency report is worth reading in the light of the release. MIT had most of that information about its faculty at the time.
> Coincidentally, it's highly unlikely Minsky did anything wrong.
Virginia Giuffre said that she had sex with Minsky when she was 17 and he was 73. I think no matter how you look at it (even if she was technically above the age of consent in the jurisdiction of Epstein's island), it is still wrong and he absolutely should have known that.
I am a big fan of Stallman's work and his views considering computer science and its role in society, but his views are not precise or correct in this matter.
> but his views are not precise or correct in this matter.
The views he expressed re sexual assault were abhorrent
I have huge respect for RMS. Being this wrong once shows the bad way (we) men of a certain age were raised. The idea that sexual assault must involve violence or the threat of violence is old, out of date, and at one point RMS held it along with society at large
Times change, and as we get older we need to change with them.
In this instance, Stallman was arguing semantics. His long-term criticism [1] is that ‘sexual assault’ is being used to cover a wide range of wrongful actions, where a more nuanced terminology to distinguish between them would be more appropriate. That in itself doesn’t imply he finds any of those actions acceptable, only that he’d like them to have more specific names.
He might not have picked a good time and place to share his terminological views, but I don’t think there’s anything wrong with them per se.
From the article, Stallman said "We can imagine many scenarios, but the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing."
That expresses an extreme obtuseness about human behavior and a lack of nuance. A 17 year old is a child.
This expresses an extreme inability to properly communicate subtext, which is common for autistic individuals, or ones autism-adjacent.
Stallman's comments, if read logically like a computer, are generally strictly correct. Stallman's comments, if read inferentially like a human might, often imply abhorrent things.
> Stallman's comments, if read logically like a computer, are generally strictly correct. Stallman's comments, if read inferentially like a human might, often imply abhorrent things.
That's not true. I understand the drive to categorize it as such, but if you look at the context of what he said, which is even mentioned in that article, you will realize that this is not a "definitional" issue or have anything to do with strict precision of terms.
That is a red herring that you are getting stuck on and using to defend him. I don't care about whether or not he thinks they are applying a word that he disagrees on the definition. I will cede that if you wish, because it is besides the point and not what he is actually arguing.
He (like you) is making the claim:
> Coincidentally, it's highly unlikely Minsky did anything wrong.
That is demonstrably an incorrect statemet. We may not a definitive morality that I can point to you and we both agree to the letter, but a 73 year old man should have the wisdom to recognize that sleeping with children is damaging to children even if they appear willing.
I will grant that Minsky's participation was probably not the most damaging thing in her life, but he chose to participate and he harmed her, contrary to what you and Stallman are claiming. It is unfortunate that we have many men (and women) who believe and like Stallman and Minsky. It shows that we need to address this and train ourselves better, so that everybody is on the same page when it comes to how we let children develop in our culture.
I'm not sure how to respond to this, except to point out that in a second comment, you finally conceded this:
> Minsky's participation
Did not happen.
The polite thing would be to apologize.
And this:
> if you look at the context of what he said
Would require you to share context. People have a history of sharing an article about an article about an article about what Stallman said.
When I go back to the source, he does have an extreme case of foot-in-mouth, but I have seen nothing from primary sources which would justify the smear campaign. Usually, the "context" is a conversation about terrorists or whatnot, Stallman making some academic point, and the "context" labelling him as "with the terrorists." Stallman:
- Can't read the room
- Doesn't follow the context
- Speaks precisely
Let me be blunt: You're smearing good people who worked to improve the world. That's not cool. It's also something which does broader harm than you might imagine. It means all but the most thick-skinned won't want to get into positions like Minsky or Stallman.
The Minsky situation was MIT looking for a fall-man.
The Stallman one dates back to Microsoft's engineered astroturf campaign, back when they were anti-FLOSS.
Why the fuck would I ever want to pick a fight with a corporation doing something nasty, if the result would be people like you calling me a pedophile?
The reason I give people a very large amount of benefit-of-the-doubt is because I've seen the effect these engineered smear campaigns have on individuals. I've also seen the amount of crazy that happens when one is famous. If a million people know who you are, and 0.01% do something crazy -- obsessive false accusations, bomb threats, or whatnot -- that's still a hundred people. Britney Spears or Zuckerberg will have security teams, legal teams, and PR teams to handle that. People who, like Stallman, are fundamentally doing something for the public benefit have the same pressure from crazies, astroturf, and whatnot, but without the ability to afford a defence.
It does seem entirely possible (not sure about ‘most plausible’) she would have presented herself as entirely willing. I see no fundamental problem with that statement. (Note that there’s a huge difference between ‘presented herself as entirely willing’ and ‘was entirely willing’, which I should hope you’re keeping in mind.)
Legally, a 17 year old may be a child in many jurisdictions, but that fact alone has little bearing on their appearance and maturity, so how is it relevant to the topic here? Had she been several months older at the time, would that have had any bearing on her interactions with Minsky, given her situation?
The above commenter and others have made the claim that Stallman is just being "precise" and "correct" about a misapplication of what sexual assault means, which is exactly besides the point and a red herring. They have also made the claim that "she would have presented herself as entirely willing". That is also besides the point. A 17 year old is a child, and that should have been enough for Minksy to not have engaged with her like that, and to recognize that Epstein was taking advantage of her (and in fact, trying to take advantage of him by offering her to him). That should have been enough. Making arguments about definitions or that she appeared "willing" are illegitimate attempts to deflect a serious moral failing. That in and of itself is a moral failing of Stallman, compounding Minsky's failing by trying to defend it.
Unless you mean to imply that any sexual acts between a young person and a remarkably older one ought to begin with the former showing their ID to prove they are in fact of age, the fact that she was legally ‘a child’ is irrelevant to the moral failing at hand. (Because it would be absurd for the morality of the act to radically shift based on whether it takes place a couple of months later or earlier.)
I do agree it was a significant moral failing (assuming he did go through with it), even if she did indeed present herself as willing and appeared of age. I don’t agree that trying to differentiate it from other related moral failings (even if it’s in a better light) constitutes a moral failing in itself, though. It is beside the point and not helpful to the matter at hand, but I don’t see much harm in it.
> Because it would be absurd for the morality of the act to radically shift based on whether it takes place a couple of months later or earlier.
The morality of this is that you should not take advantage of and harm a vulnerable person. In this case, being a child makes them deeply vulnerable. It doesn't matter if it is "a couple of months later or earlier".
Yes, that’s exactly my point. Law usually draws a (somewhat arbitrary) line between child and adult, but what really happens is that people mature gradually, so while the practical difference between a 10-year-old and a 30-year-old is great, the practical difference between a 17-year-old and an 18-year-old is minuscule.
> Virginia Giuffre said that she had sex with Minsky when she was 17 and he was 73. I think no matter how you look at it (even if she was technically above the age of consent in the jurisdiction of Epstein's island), it is still wrong and he absolutely should have known that.
This statement is factually false.
She said she was asked to offer herself for sex to Minsky. People inferred from this that sex happened, but Virginia did not say this. Read the full file.
Accounts from Minsky's wife say that Minsky declined. Accounts from Minsky's friends say he was very monogamous. No one close to the situation supports an account of Minsky having sex with Virginia Giuffre.
The natural next step should not have been to indict Minsky's reputation, but to ask Virginia Giuffre the natural follow-up: How did Minsky react when you made the offer?
In the deposition in Giuffre v Maxwell, she says she was directed by Maxwell to have sex with Prince Andrew, Jean Luc Brunel, Bill Richardson, Marvin Minsky and others. In those remarks, she is usually asked if she was sent or directed, presumably because they were concerned with Maxwell's involvement, and less concerned with the actual acts.
> Accounts from Minsky's wife say that Minsky declined.
That statement is factually false, unless you have a source that is not publicly available. The only accounts I can find is that his widow said it couldn't have happened because she said she was always with him, not that he declined.
Everything you wrote is materially correct. Given that you have this background, can you please explain how this:
> Virginia Giuffre said that she had sex with Minsky when she was 17 and he was 73.
Was not a lie?
Also: Yes, I do have sources which are not publicly available, but the difference between "declined" versus "it couldn't have happened because she said she was always with him" is within the spectrum of ambiguity of real-world human speech and memory. It is not materially different. The material point is there are multiple witnesses (at least the widow, in public sources) that say he did not have sex.
If you want proof of MIT folks covering up:
a) Read the MIT Transparency Report
b) Look at photos on archive.org from people who went to Epstein island and events whom MIT did not reveal. All this was public at the time.
Compare. But MIT also has travel records, so most of the people in the Epstein files, MIT knew about and chose to omit.
It is materially different. Either it did not happen as the widow claimed, or it did and it was declined.
I will back down from my claim that Minsky did have sex with Virginia Giuffree. In the deposition in the case against Maxwell, the questions were if Maxwell directed her to have sex with Prince Andrew, Jean Luc Brunel, Bill Richardson, Marvin Minsky and others. She was not asked if she actually followed through.
If you have non-public information, then feel free to share, otherwise there is nothing left to say.
As someone on the spectrum/neurodivergent myself, no, it does not excuse his behavior whatsoever (or the lack of action by MIT).
Stallman predicting that a technical capability could be abused and then somebody eventually abusing it is not Cassandra syndrome, it's just threat modeling run amuck. It gets old after a while (I should know, I remember classic Slashdot lol). The actual question is whether his proposed cure(s) were worth the cost, and that has very much not been "proven right" (if anything, LLMs/agents are rapidly eroding some of the practical premises his arguments depended on, IMO)
> if anything, LLMs/agents are rapidly eroding some of the practical premises his arguments depended on, IMO
As someone who also remembers classic Slashdot, it's staggering how many of the things Stallman was writing about back then came true. Software is centralized and subscription based, and largely not under the consumer's control. I fail to see how LLMs make any of these situations better, care to elaborate?
> Software is centralized and subscription based, and largely not under the consumer's control.
Is it really though? I'll grant that you might have a point with iOS/Android and things like banking apps (no problem with the apps existing, it's when there's no web-based alternative is where the real issue lies). But there's more (F)OSS code out in the wild then there's ever been, more (F)OSS alternatives to most major software, Steam runs on Linux, major companies like Google and Nintendo putting licensing notices where you can read them). Not to mention the rise of open source hardware, the whole makersphere, etc.
> I fail to see how LLMs make any of these situations better, care to elaborate?
By driving the cost of software to zero. I've had great success over the past year or so constructing a whole range of system software, the original "no driver for this printer" complaint Stallman had would be solved with an evening of Claude/Codex/etc usage now (and to prove my point, we just had someone crank out a Linux GPU driver for M4 Apple Silicon using LLMs)
It's still a fringe movement even now, at least the turbo fanatic, FSF disciple kind. It was normal companies like Google adopting Linux that drove adoption, not something Stallman did.
Don’t throw other people under the bus to justify what a wretched person he is. Being autistic doesn’t make you defend pedophilia or any of the other unpleasantness he’s implicated in.
I can write "EA-3167" and "pedophilia" in an article 100 times. Congratulations! You're now associated with pedophilia. That's a classic smear campaign.
Unless someone can cite something Stallman specifically said or did which implicates him, I'm passing on this as part of a smear campaign. I will not accept:
- An article reporting on an article reporting on a misquote of Stallman
- Subtext you read into something he wrote (his flaw is he doesn't get subtext to what he writes)
There's infinite communications from him. He has no filter. Go on. Find something. If you can't, accept you're wrong. The alternative is that I'll accept you're being malicious.
> “In 2006, Stallman published a controversial comment about the intention of pedophiles in The Netherlands to form a political party[1]. He wrote, I am skeptical of the claim that voluntary pedophilia harms children. People today don't think that a prepubertal human being—a child—is capable of understanding all the implications of sexual activity (in some cases this may be so even after puberty). So in widespread social opinion, the concept of “voluntary” does not apply.
In the same article, Stallman writes, [...] stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing. This is not totally improper, it encompasses the immense diversity of beliefs about age of consent and morality across cultures.
As for laws, in the United States the criteria for determining age of consent and related issues differ across jurisdictions, some of them have raised the age of consent as recently as 2017 and 2019. Furthermore, the United States seems to have a double standard when it comes to these laws, since marriage of a child with an adult—even much older—is allowed under certain circumstances; we believe that this seriously disregards children's wellbeing in favor of some other “convenience.” Lastly, it may be surprising to some that age of consent in the US is 16 in 34 States”
Then the actual “defense of Stallman” bit is that he changed his mind or at least said he did… thirteen years later:
Whatever the reasoning that led Stallman to write those statements, the fact is that later he changed his mind:
> “14 September 2019 (Sex between an adult and a child is wrong)
Many years ago I posted that I could not see anything wrong about sex between an adult and a child, if the child accepted it.
Through personal conversations in recent years, I've learned to understand how sex with a child can harm per psychologically. This changed my mind about the matter: I think adults should not do that. I am grateful for the conversations that enabled me to understand why.”
Note the date and remember this VERY late “change of heart” coincidentally took place one month after Epstein died and became the current sensation he remains.
That’s from an attempt defend him, and ironically the site is full of documentation of the hideous things he says and believes.
The so-called "article" is a one-line comment on a post in what looks like a 2006-era Twitter-style feed. I think one would see a similar amount of crazy from virtually anyone posting this much, without a filter.
Read it.
Do you believe Stallman is a pedophile on the basis of this comment?
I do not.
I've seen similar comments in academic texts, in the context of cultures where this happened and was acceptable (e.g. Greek pederasty in ancient Athens). From what I know of Stallman's communication style, I read this comment in a similar, if much less informed, light. He's making an incorrect but academic point, poorly.
> I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren't voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing.
THE EXACT SAME QUOTE on the page you linked. I get it. Do yourself a favor and stop making excuses for him, you can still support the points he makes about FOSS without defending the rest or the man himself. His problem isn't communication style it's the content of what he says that's a problem.
I also never said "Stallman is a pedophile" I said he supports pedophilia. That comment alone, never mind the others, is more than enough to make that claim. Have a lovely weekend.
Exactly. Aligned AI is a high energy state as it has to keep a bunch of human behavior in mind that have little to nothing to do with its future survival states.
In my academic career, I had one instance of reviewers actually reading a paper. Otherwise -- accept or reject -- the comments made clear the paper had never been actually read.
Retractions are non-existent, even with clearly proven academic malpractice.
reply