And you don't think that plays some part in all these arcane security requirements that basically amount to "you're doing something a little weird so we're just going to block you rather than support it"?
Apologies, I didn't mean that at a personal level. Obvious the conversation here is happening. I was more gesturing at the national media which is basically eggshell walking around this admin.
I don't think "you can do whatever you want other than just turn around and sell a chat wrapper for this" makes it immediately not open weights. Could it be more open? Sure. That doesn't mean it's misleading or a lie and I would strong disagree that it's "not being remotely open."
This seems important enough to just send out a patch update that removes the cert and does nothing else. But apparently at least a couple people at Apple disagree; or, something I'm not familiar with makes that type of update impossible.
You have to admit that “just a quick patch” isn’t automatically low-risk. You could cause a large blast radius if you rush any patch out without proper testing.
I agree 100%, but I keep going back to the blast radius of a compromised CA and my gut instinct is still "get rid of it and push a hotfix" but I completely acknowledge it's a lot more complicated to ship a MacOS update than just branch off of master and push a new commit, and my experience is almost entirely the latter.
I mean, I agree with you, I'm just basing my thoughts of what I've seen managers at different companies prioritize as "important" even when engineers cry that a security issue should be of higher priority...
Something can be both simple to execute and extremely difficult to execute well. Simple and easy are not synonymous.
> High-value technical audiences aren't Googling for educational articles, videos, and courses. They're just asking LLMs, and getting answers.
You're right, but the high-value audiences are also looking at the sources the LLMs cite, guiding the LLMs to use specific source and exclude others (even if it's just "eschew blogspam and listicles" in the prompt). So being one of those sources is still valuable. Perhaps less so, but it's not without value.
That's the wrong question. The right question is, "What crimes can be construed to have been committed, in order to put enough people in jail for long enough sentences such that the chain of malicious and destructive financial misconduct which lead to the crisis can be severed?".
Capone actually did evade taxes, though. Nobody "construed [it] to have been committed." It was a real crime.
If you think something is bad for society but it's not legal, you make it illegal. You don't make up false crimes and arrest people for those. That's what tyrants and sociopaths do. It's disgusting.
No one said anything about making up crimes. The point is to look at a financial crisis or catastrophic market event with the mindset that functional markets where everyone is playing fair do not behave that way, and that, because the situation is abnormal, a crime is likely to have been committed to set it in those circumstances.
Further, because the complexity and opacity of markets and firms makes finding and proving specific securities fraud instances difficult and expensive, makes pinning those instances on the actual decision-makers difficult and expensive, and makes securing consequences that actually stop the fraud functionally or as a deterrent difficult and expensive, it is prudent and pragmatic to identify those decision-makers and to go after them for anything and everything you can find. If you're a high-powered banker and hedge fund manager who uses sophisticated strategies to fleece millions of Americans out of their investments, you shouldn't get off because investigators can't get at the smoking gun documents that you burned or hid from discovery. I want them to ignore the small-fry and go after you with everything they've got.
We did not do this after 2008, which is why we are where we are.
So again, the correct question is not a skeptical, "What crime has been committed?", but a willful," What crimes can we find among the people involved here, whatever they are?". I have no moral qualms or compunction about this, and no one who remembers the ravages of the GFC or the last few years will have an issue, either.
I expect law enforcement to find a crime, then find the perpetrator. You expect them to find a person they (or someone powerful) doesn't like, and find a crime to suit. That's fine, it even makes sense. Most tyrants don't believe they're actually tyrants.
At the risk of feeding the trolls...
> If you're a high-powered banker and hedge fund manager who uses sophisticated strategies to fleece millions of Americans out of their investments
How exactly do you tell the difference between the trader who fleeces millions and the trader who is simply good at their job and makes an equivalent amount of money?
>You expect them to find a person they (or someone powerful) doesn't like, and find a crime to suit.
I expect investigators to follow up on reasonable suspicion, which is what unusual market events or behavior should arouse. The crime and the perpetrator are found at the same time, because one can't exist without the other, legally speaking; to start with a definitive crime is to assume guilt, which, as you say, is incorrect. You triangulate on the crime-perpetrator (think space-time); this, of course, means that you must investigate people who are merely suspected of committing a crime. Some will be wholly innocent. Some will present evidence of crime other than the one you initially suspected; you should pursue that, too, in the interests of justice.
Speak only for yourself, please.
>How exactly do you tell the difference between the trader who fleeces millions and the trader who is simply good at their job and makes an equivalent amount of money?
Most tyrants don't believe they're actually tyrants.
The point of an efficient market is that it's difficult to beat, and the difficulty increases exponentially. Unless you cheat.
Yeah I'm not sure the alternative would be better. You will always have calls that don't fit neatly into the "crime" "fire" or "injury" buckets. Of the three of those whose time I would want to take up dealing with something in the margins it makes complete sense for it to be a police officer, if for no other reason than there are a lot more of them than there are paramedics or [professional] firefighters in most areas. Downstream of that the potential negatives of having 1-2 paramedics dealing with nonsense and unavailable for other calls seem much higher than the negatives of having 1-2 cops unavailable for some period of time.
So why do cell phone providers provide that information when you call 911 in Marion County? The 911 dispatcher literally showed me on her computer how the map displays the GPS coordinates of the cell phone, and live updates, and keeps updating even after the call has ended (for 3 minutes maybe? IDR).
Your cell phone provider isn't able to provide accurate live GPS coordinates; it can only triangulate your approximate location based on cell tower triangulation.
If Marion County is getting your pinpoint location, it's getting it from the phone itself, which requires a modern 911 system.
reply