The lead story is that someone took a dog with tags and contact info, didn’t call the owners took it to a shelter instead, then the shelter didn’t call the owner either. Finally, the owner calls the police and finds out what happened.
Either there’s a huge lack of common sense at many places here or this story is leaving some details out.
There's a big fluffy white dog in my neighbhorhood who has a talent for jumping the fence. I've returned him 3 times. This is not hard... once you determine he's friendly and just on an adventure the phone number is on his tag.
There are literally people in my apartment complex in California insisting we feed and provide water for the stray cats, squirrels, and raccoons (yes even the raccoons) because they "can't live on their own" and then are concerned when any of those turn up dead because local coyotes know where the food is.
Very dark but reminds me of a comment/joke/meme about someone having a conversation about adopting cats from the shelter, and then them being outdoor or indoor/outdoor, disappearing after a few weeks, and then them adopting another, same thing.
"Sounds like you're just feeding them to the coyotes."
> a new neighbor had spotted Faith just outside a fence on Wissner’s property
Wording could be taken either way, and I could be wrong, but it almost sounds like the dog was not on the property of its owner, and was over the fence in the neighbours property?
We have a huge problem with pet cats that stray from their properties and eat birds/fish/etc in neighbouring properties... if one turns up on my property, I trap it and send it to the shelter specifically so the owner gets fined, even though I know who owns it. It's what our local council/government recommend we do considering the owners already know it's illegal for pet cats to be off their property here (or even outside of their house after dark, which is almost always when we trap them in our yard).
> it's illegal for pet cats to be off their property here
So, is it deliberate that this is indistinguishable from making outside cats illegal? Otherwise how the heck are owners supposed to ensure cats stay on their property?
> Otherwise how the heck are owners supposed to ensure cats stay on their property?
Sounds like that's their problem to figure out, and I think that's right. I would 1000 times rather have more birds at my feeders than the neighbor's cat pooping in my yard, hunting birds and bothering my dog.
Let them put in a good fence, electric collar, leash with one of those zip line things - whatever they have to do.
On the other hand, assuming you are in North America or Europe in a typical urban or suburban environment, somewhere around 30-60% of the bird species in your area will be non-native.
At bird feeders the percentage of individual visitors that are non-native is often much higher. The non-natives tend to be more generalist eaters, whereas the native specifies tend to stick more to their native diet which isn't as well served by most feeders.
By drawing in these generalist non-natives feeders tend to actually displace native birds from the surrounding area.
That's why when I was feeding birds I didn't really worry about cats getting into my yard. I couldn't think of a way to make a good argument that the line of how much harm it is OK to do to the native environment for your enjoyment is somewhere between the harm feeding non-native birds does and the harm the neighborhood cats do (especially since I've never seen a cat catch a bird in my yard).
Reasonable. I like cats well enough, but I find that cat owners are usually very irrational about people disliking other people's cats causing issues, especially compared to dog owners. I don't really understand why.
Dogs are easier to train and control than cats. A dog being a menace outside can be put on a leash. That's not always an option for a cat, which in practice means the cat owner knowing the only option is to confine their cat indoors. Which many don't want to do. (Mine gets semi-supervised time outside. I put a GPS collar on him from time to time, however, and he doesn't go far and comes back quite quickly. He's also seventeen and so past his most urgent hunting days, though we did have an issue with him letting in an elk last winter.)
what is genuinely what happens? stray cats are put down by animal control?
read the exchange in which i told someone they sounded crazy. understand it in context, and try to be less eager to blurt out your first reaction. god damn.
Definitely agree on that. First thing I do is look for a tag/number. Taking the dog to a shelter is like Russian roulette, dog may get euthanized if nobody shows up looking for it within ?? days.
It’s weird because it’s like a series of well meaning people that dropped the ball on what was the most obvious action to take.
One spring a bird built a nest in a tree outside my 80 yr old grandmother's kitchen window. She watched the nest every day and then the eggs hatched. The next day a neighbor's outdoor cat climbed the tree and killed all the baby birds. My grandmother complained to the neighbors but they didn't see what the problem was. Oh well.
> if one turns up on my property, I trap it and send it to the shelter specifically so the owner gets fined, even though I know who owns it.
I don’t know the full story here, but have you tried talking to your neighbor? Like, really tried in a way that takes their perspective seriously? Because what you’ve described here is essentially guaranteed to make the relationship worse and likely to cause other problems down the road. Heaven forbid you ever truly need this person’s help, you’re going to be in a tough spot.
> Wording could be taken either way, and I could be wrong, but it almost sounds like the dog was not on the property of its owner, and was over the fence in the neighbours property?
The concept of being on ranch property gets a bit nebulous in Wyoming when you realize much private land is checkerboarded with blm land and the ranchers have long term blm grazing leases. The dog being outside the rancher's private property doesn't mean it's not out doing its job.
Quick question, do you actually live under a rock, have you never spoke to rescue workers at Cat Haven, are you fully clueless about the numbers of "pet cats" that end up as not pets?
All un-neutered outdoor cats absolutely are potential feral cats.
Not all turn feral, not all abandoned - but all have the potential.
On this point I have actual life experience and have worked with town rangers and native conservationists who prefer their bilbies et al over the cats and foxes that kill them.
Introduced species left to run wild are an actual problem - although you appear to struggle to acknowledge that as fact.
All pet cats are potential feral cats - ones that are neutered will only prey on wildlife until they die without offspring. Cats that can breed will litter out wild cats if allowed to run wild.
> All un-neutered outdoor cats absolutely are potential feral cats.
These are very different statements, are they not? And the main difference is the neutering.
Edit for your addition: > All pet cats are potential feral cats - ones that are neutered will only prey on wildlife until they die without offspring. Cats that can breed will litter out wild cats if allowed to run wild.
But proper pets being abandoned is rarer and they can be recaptured much more easily and they don't contribute that much to the feral population.
Perhaps reread my all comments - the difference between a feral cat that spawns more feral cats and a cat turned feral that can't litter is the difference between spawn and no spawn - not between that cat having turned feral or not.
It's really hard to reply when you flip a coin between adding to your post and responding.
Neutered cats that lose their house don't usually become properly feral and even when they do it's not a big percent of feral cats as far as I can tell. It's a rare thing, outdoor cats are not "proto feral" as a whole.
"Some people I know disagree" is not very helpful when you're not specifying what they disagree with.
Especially given that earlier crack about me "struggling to acknowledge" the idea of introduced species. You mentioned cats as an introduced species to someone else, not to me! And even then, a probably-deliberate release of cats 240 years ago into a cat-free land is very very different from modern pets in a land that already has lots of cats.
We know this, here in Australia, as most pet cats are chipped and when cats are captured rangers can test if they have been chipped (and whether the registered owners are still about).
It's possible people don't like sheep ranchers. Or maybe its just that one rancher. We have the goat herders in our area that fence off parts of the undeveloped land during the summer because it's a fire hazard. Those guardian dogs never leave the fenced area, and they will let you know when you are too close very quickly.
That's the thing, they don't roam. My Great Pyrenees when younger would sometimes refuse to come in, and we have in our back yard a very low fence, like barely knee high in places, and a few other spots she could leave the yard.
But they're patrollers - they establish where they're meant to protect, and they stay in that area - they don't want to be lured away, because that means their home area is unprotected.
Some coyote hunt like that - they'll send a lone dog out to try to lure dogs to come investigate or play and when the animal does, the pack will get it. We went camping with friends and brought our GP, and when you could hear that, very near by, she was energized and on high alert, but she was locked in on standing right by us, between us and the howling.
I have one of these dogs. They’re basically treated like livestock in some places, not pets. Also they’re extremely clever and capable of having and executing on “ideas.” People put 2 GPS collars on them for a reason. It’s not inconceivable this one got loose, was in rough shape (covered in burrs, scratches, lean) and to anyone’s eyes needed to see a professional. But who knows, as you said.
Right - they're generally bred and trained to be independent. If they are out with a flock at night, even from a very young age, they need to make a decision on what to do about a perceived threat, to them, or the flock, without direction from a handler, or another member of their group (often times they will work in twos, a day shift and a night shift, and it's amazing watching how they just figure out their routine between them).
I've always had, and loved, large dogs - an Airedale/Wolfhound, then a Newfoundland, and now a Great Pyrenees. I love all of them but the GP basically feels like my dog now.
> People in the US are often very judgemental of the way others treat dogs,
Maybe because the incidence of actual neglect and abuse is non-zero; and if you have an affinity for them, it’s hard to turn a blind eye. But I suppose it results in some situations that aren’t perceived accurately.
I think it would be better to do this with children than with dogs, and I wish more people did. Why do you think more people say this about dogs than children?
Well, to add to that, in many states, "neglect" isn't a crime. They're considered your property in most cases, and a lot of times it has to be "active physical abuse" before LE or Animal Services can step in.
Jack Clark (says that he) thinks that US GDP could grow by 50% by 2030 [0]
> Speaking at the 2026 Per Jacobsson Foundation Lecture during the IMF and World Bank annual meetings in Bangkok, Clark pointed to an extreme economic scenario modeled by Anthropic economists in which U.S. GDP could reach roughly $44 trillion by 2030, which is a nearly 50% increase from the current $30.77 trillion in just four years.
If the total value of US public companies also increased by 50% in that time, they'd collectively be worth about $112T. I guess Anthropic could be worth 10% of that in some scenario? And if we're in that world probably capital has increased a lot faster than labor so US public companies could be worth like 150T or something. Who knows. Nothing about valuations makes sense any more, so what's one more drop in the nonsense bucket.
who gives a shit what Jack Clark thinks? I’d be shocked if anyone at Anthropic did. In an industry full of grifters and leeches you’d be hard pressed to find a bigger one.
By that logic we should encourage giant companies to buy Warner Brothers. Each time it fails, it helps topple leviathans, which decreases market concentration.
And yet, their models are often behind and the team is bleeding talent. A moat is not a compendium of intimidating features, it’s a matter of whether a company deters competitors and maintains a competitive advantage. So far, Google obviously does not have one here.
And what should we do about apps' getting hacked, sending out malicious updates that get auto-updated and thereby infecting tens of millions or billions of phones simultaneously?
I'm not saying we have the perfect system but anything that slants the system towards "easier downloads" or "less gatekeeping" brings large, obvious risks. I don't see how regulation would address them.
We already had enough proof of vulnerabilities in the OS code and Manufacturers (eg. Samsung/Lenovo/etc privileged apps), there were enough reviewed apps that were used for fraud or access as bad actors.
My banking works in my 'unprotected' computer browser. So I'd expect giving anyone equivalent freedom. I don't mind if there's a default for gate-keepers as long as they allow competition. but I would expect to have same freedom on my mobile devices as on my laptop.
Just because there are known vulnerabilities don't mean we should drop other security features, this is the opposite in fact. Defense in depth, an OS-level vulnerability cannot be exploited if the attacker cannot access that part of the OS.
And like it or not, the Play Store approval process is a security feature. It limits the ability of bad actors to run code on your phone and access data or exploit vulnerabilities they wouldn't be able to otherwise. Some get through, but it makes their life harder, again, defense in depth. Something can be both an anticompetitive practice and a security feature.
As for banking in the browser, you can, but your bank probably doesn't like it. That's why they are pushing for browser attestation, or to force you to use the app. The banks would rather take that freedom away from everyone rather than giving it to everyone. And I suspect they do it for good (as in profitable) reasons, fraud costs them, it costs them more than what they would gain by being more open.
If we want security features and freedom (which is the harder option), we need competition. If Google and Apple are the only players besides an insignificant minority, it is easy to lock software to these platforms, screw that weird guy with his Linux distro. Legislation is another option if the first one fails.
We should have web installs by now. The only reason we don't is because Google and Apple like cash and their little monopolies are easy money.
Big tech loves to "protect us". See Anthropic and OpenAI worried about intelligence.
Google doesn't care that its AdSense ads marketplace is flooded with malware. Or that YouTube is rife with scams. Wonder why not. The blatant policy contradiction couldn't be because money, right?
I believe people in HN also remember the days before we had MMUs.
And I'm sure everyone remembers ransomware.
No one is saying OS shouldn't have security measures, permissions/entitlements and app sandboxing, user land, etc.
I still don't understand why my desktop/laptop is allowed to be 'owned' by me. but my iPhone is a closed-gardened where I'm just a guest in a device I own. and that's nearly what Google is now doing.
> They were a massive issue before, and now they're barely a thought for most people.
Even on desktops... where there are no such review processes. Apparently we've found other mechanisms to reduce those issues, without app stores everywhere.
They're still very much a thing on desktop. You're not wrong that Windows got better at protecting itself, but I suspect the reason you don't hear about them is just that few people use desktops anymore (other than developers who, for obvious reasons, are typically less prone to be infected).
Anecdotally, at least once a month for the past several years, I notice a youtube channel in my feed get hacked. Their usual content gets replaced with crypto, Roblox, or Elon/SpaceX spam. Big channels, small channels, it happens to them all.
There's usually a post-mortem when they manage to regain control. Every time the infection happened through a virus attached to an email or by following a link on their discord.
This kind of attack simply cannot happen on mobile (unless your phone is rooted and you have disabled all warnings).
I didn’t write the previous comment, but I think the point here is that there is a long-running trend aiming to protect users both from malicious intent and to a certain extent from themselves.
In the past, viruses had it easy to infect and spread computers because of both inattentive users clicking on mails claiming someone loved them, and the default access mode for any user granting them admin access.
Even though review processeses generally do not exist for computers, they are part of that same trend.
And outside stores we have Windows’ UAC and Mac’s annoying-but-understandable “this dmg is sus” dialogues. Granted they are review processes but they’re often what keeps common users from wrecking their devices.
2. still review apps uploaded to Google Play, but don't force users to use Google Play
If the concern is what if users use an alternate source for apps and those have viruses, then.... okay. If the user wants to stay with strictly Google-vetted apps, they can. If desired, you could have an option on setup that users could choose to select that would put the device in a restricted mode that can only use apps installed from Google Play.
But the motivation here isn't just security, it's control. Google doesn't want anyone to have an Android device that is independent of Google services.
> If the concern is what if users use an alternate source for apps and those have viruses, then.... okay. If the user wants to stay with strictly Google-vetted apps, they can. If desired, you could have an option on setup that users could choose to select that would put the device in a restricted mode that can only use apps installed from Google Play.
So this doesn't solve the issue pointed in the OP.
> don't force auto-updates
I'm sure everyone would love non-technical people to stay behind dozens of security patches for apps they may use everyday because they forgot to press update.
>So this doesn't solve the issue pointed in the OP.
Yes it does. This is their point:
> The fact that we cannot download and install software from the internet onto our phones JUST like we can do with our computers is a symbol of our inept and ineffective politicians.
It should be as easy for me to use an alternate storefront - or download directly from a site - straight to my phone. The googleplay store, which is (somewhat) curated and (generally) "safer" can also exist. I, as a user, get to decide which path I want to take. This is literally no different from my desktop and laptop, we already live this life. MacOS allows me to download .dmg files and install (though they are admittedly getting increasingly annoying/friction-y about it) at my own risk. Why should my phone be any different? It’s a small computer. That’s it.
It’s about user choice. It’s my hardware, so I can do with it what I want so long as I’m not using it to inflict harm on others.
I mean, probably not technically due to some EULA you were forced to sign which says the hardware is actually Google/samsung/etc and not yours. Giving them the right to brick your phone the moment you step out of the bounds they define.
We really need some sort of open firmware legislation that mandates manufacturers of computer components need to opensource their drivers and firmware. There's no "special sauce" in that software that warrants a company being able to keep it secret. It's literally just so they can force you to purchase new devices when they get bored of supporting their old devices.
Agree, what I'm saying is "it is mine and we should treat it as mine, same as my laptop/desktop." We both agree the current status quo is not that, I'm saying what it should be.
> I'm sure everyone would love non-technical people to stay behind dozens of security patches for apps they may use everyday because they forgot to press update.
this is identifying the tension yeah, but if a review process regularly takes weeks or months, then the security patches are still missing
If libraries didn't exist could not be created today. People tend to say that "it is impossible" when it actually only needs to be well organized.
Splitting git tech-monopolies it is a survival need. Or we do it, or we will end up with a collapsed society. Entities that spy on all citizens and gatekeep access to news and services are contrary to basic human rights and democracy.
MacOS has been moving to a more locked down model over the years - increasingly difficult to install unsigned applications, SIP, etc.
> Windows
I think Windows is incredibly impressive for its ability to run binaries from many years ago, but I don't think there's much people would point to as a positive regarding Windows’ approach to app security.
How about treating people like adults for a start? How about starting public awareness campaigns about proper digital hygiene. Not everything has to be nanny state garbage.
I don't know. Literally every single person I help with tech support makes me doubt this is possible. People do not care in the slightest and treat suggestions to learn basic digital hygiene as if you've asked them to a computer science degree in its entirety.
Even super basic stuff like remembering a single secure password instead of reusing the same 2 or 3 basic initials-dob-symbol permutations that were probably pwned 10 years ago seems insurmountable.
IMO in that case its their own fault. After all they have free will and can use it against their own good if they so choose. Let them get pwned a few times and see if they learn.
that's so dumb on so many levels... should we strip cars from active safety measures and let drivers who are not super good at driving just kill themselves on the road?
Parent commenter's argument wasn't that people don't know to use good passwords, instead they just don't care. I think in that case getting hacked is completely one's own fault. If we're comparing this to cars, a closer analogy would be dying in a car crash because of an unfastened seatbelt.
I agree, but what I disagree with is the idea that everyone must be prevented from freely installing software on their own devices to make sure unskilled people cannot be tricked into doing it.
I don't really understand why a well designed sandbox and permissions system doesn't solve the problem.
Well cars kill people, granny using the password “password” does not. We can’t prevent all levels of stupidity and carelessness.
If people want to have dumb passwords and download malware, then so be it. You think they can’t do that today with the google play store? Of course they can. Most malware on android comes from the Google play store.
maybe there should be alternatives to using the smartphone for everything, personal finances included. my bank stopped offering a home banking service for example (yes, of course the mobile app still sucks), and it's a trend.
I've worked with dozens of businesses over the years and you can't even get businesses with real money and consequences on the line to follow basic security practices. My current project is updating dozens of windows domain controllers that are still on 2012 R2. Aka critical infrastructure that hasn't been getting updates for years.
At some point computers need to stop being treated as magical boxes that no reasonable person can learn how to use safely. We expect people who use cars to learn how to use them safely, we expect people who use lawnmowers to not stick their fingers in them. Computers have been a part of daily life for normies for decades at this point, it's infantilizing to suggest that average, non-tech savvy people can't learn to use (not necessarily build, repair, etc.) them properly and need to be protected from them.
People have to successfully get through a state exam in order to drive cars in first place, can be jailed, get fined when not driving them safely, or forbidden for life to ever drive again.
People that accidentality cut their fingers in lawnmowers due to lack of safety features are allowed to sue the lawnmower company.
What I would agree is that it is about time computing gets the same liability laws that the rest of the world already has in place and no EULAs that work around local laws should be considered valid in any form or shape.
Do you hate open source and want only projects where their authors can afford liability insurance and are willing to put themselves in the firing line of a legal system that can be both arbitrary and capricious? Because that’s what you seem to want.
And that’s how you prevent bake sales, lemonade stands, and more. You create a barrier to entry that gets raised little by little until only the biggest players can afford the game. Software liability would end all small open source projects.
Bake sales and lemonade stands are perfectly fine as long as people don't land on hospital urgency, due to careless work on preparing them with spoiled ingredients or lack of hygiene.
Now do that again without careless work or spoiled ingredients. Do you still want them punished or facing so much regulation they can't exist? Because you'll definitely get that with software; even really good development will have flaws, and single flaws can lead to a thousand or million hacks.
I dunno, people seem to accept most kinds of tool being fussy or flaky.
But the special thing about security flaws is that they turn a one in a billion error into a guaranteed attack. It's moderately hard to make something that doesn't feel buggy, but ridiculously hard to be secure. If you hold to the standards of a bake sale it's the former. If you want full security then nobody releases anything outside very strict contracts.
The problem is it's literally speech. Selling something isn't speech, you do not have the right to do charity work or run a business. It goes even beyond speech, it's closer to pure math/logic and I feel very uncomfortable about regulating that. I also think it's literally impossible.
On power tools, appliances, etc. the safety features are at the user's latitude to bypass. They are usually a hint (don't microwave your dog), not a hard barrier ("I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that"). A spinning blade is covered by a grill you can trivially remove without permission from anyone.
I agree that the defaults should be secure, but you can't force security on people without creating parallel issues which are maybe worse. Centralizing this power in a single point can have orders of magnitude bigger blast radius than a security failure on an app.
At some point users have to take responsibility and be accountable for their actions. We can't just infantilize them forever as if a magical hand will always be over them protecting and having their best interest in mind. And we certainly shouldn't punish every user for the sake of some of them.
The worst part is that Google gets the benefit of putting itself as the central point of control over the ecosystem based on a promise to keep users safe, but without any of the liability from failing to keep that promise. When the app store is chock full of malware I'm really starting to suspect that their goal is actually only the control. And all those people defending it with "but people don't know better, they need a hand to guide them" were equally misled. What do you think?
The amount of "Do not put hands here" labels I've seen on lawnmowers would suggest that, yes, someone did sue and win (or at the least got a settlement) and thus the lawyers forced the companies to put disclaimers and warnings on the lawnmower, directly on the top of the deck in plain sight.
The computer itself won't really do anything. But I'm sure suicides go up when people lose all their money, or get personal private details leaked, and so on.
> "One [software fault] was when the operator incorrectly selected X-ray mode then in 8 seconds quickly changing to electron mode, which allowed the electron beam to be set for X-ray mode without the X-ray target being in place"
Therac-25 is an important software-development case study but a torturous stretch of "Using a computer wrong"
The endpoint safety problem obviously applies to me and every person connected to the World Wide Web, but the grandparent was talking about The Olds who install the AskJeeves and the Yahoo! toolbars and Bonzi Buddy and...
If computers aren't safe enough that a reasonably competent user, who doesn't open random files they found online and obvious spear-phishing emails, can't use one without losing their 401k, then maybe we need to just reevaluate modern life and go back to bank tellers.
And e.g. browsers cracked down on it, removed toolbar support and powerful add-on support AND enforced signing meaning everything goes through their gatekept extension store and these problems still persist (e.g. addons changing the search provider, new tab page or homepage). Locking everything down does not help.
Is that true - do you not see significantly fewer of those installs on random PCs now than you did years ago? And that's even with the current situation not being what I'd call fully locked down.
A problem that can't be solved, you can't check every single program out there much like you can't check every single human ever even with cameras installed everywhere.
20 years of being tech support for countless family members and acquaintances says that nothing can possibly make people care about "digital hygiene". An iPad, Chromebook, or similar inflexible device is perfect for most people, and marketing more flexible devices to them has been a mistake since the beginning.
You expect people to treat devices with respect and responsibility? The VAST majority of people use their phones to stream an infinite sequence of clickbait, ai slop, and conspiracies for 6 to 8 hours a day.
I wonder if people would be happy replacing the "Google approves developers" system with a "government requires your ID and address on file so you can be held liable for your apps" system. I suspect not.
If you don't agree with a decision made by your government, you can vote for someone else next time.
If you don't agree with a decision made by Google, what do you do?
The people I vote for never win. Am I really any more empowered with the government than I am with Google? At least with Google I can de-google my life (with some significant losses of convenience, but it is doable)
Personally, I find it easier to live with a decision I don't support if I was simply out-numbered in a fair vote, rather than out-powered by some random company on some random continent.
As for doing without Google, I'm kinda doing that myself (using a Linux phone even). But tbh, I think that nowadays moving to another country to escape a government you fundamentally disagree with is easier than moving away from Google.
The only part that would really be novel is the liability.
I would be shocked if you could publish an iOS app without Apple being able to tell the government who you are. Less because Apple cares and more because Apple requires you to pay, which is very hard to do anonymously for something like this (I’d bet the options they offer are effectively “credit card only”).
The app stores are neither necessary nor sufficient to curb malicious software. Conflating the centralized app stores with safety is a mistake that only serves the gatekeepers.
Just because something is not perfect that does not mean it's worthless. Most things security things operate this way where it's impossible to stop all malware or attacks.
When analyzing whether something is a net good for society, I look not only at the value it brings, but the cost that it brings. The mobile ecosystem normalizing the idea that the vendor that sold you your everyday computing device is the sole arbiter of what can run on that device is of enormous cost to society, but anytime anyone brings that up, there's an immediate retort bringing fear, uncertainty, and doubt about software obtained outside of those centralized silos.
As I've said countless times before, the answer is clear. Operating systems can install software from repositories. The vendor of the operating system can provide a default set of repositories. Third parties can also provide their own repositories. Device owners can choose what repositories to install software from.
Saying that there can only be one true repository is carrying water for trillion dollar companies to further extract money from their customers.
We could force Google to operate its app review service independently. Users could use it and pay for it, or alternatives. Currently Google forces everyone to use their own mediocre service and pay for it without knowing exactly where and how much you pay.
> And what should we do about apps' getting hacked, sending out malicious updates that get auto-updated and thereby infecting tens of millions or billions of phones simultaneously?
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
People accidentally hurt themselves with kitchen knives every day. They are also very often used for violent crimes.
Clearly we need to regulate the kitchen knife industry more. There should be a central authority that sells authorized kitchen knives with at max 6cm length and all other knives should only be available to certified chefs.
Once we have outlawed the longer knives and strong restrictions on ordinary kitchen tools become normal we should just outlaw knives altogether. You can still hurt yourself with a short knife. Only chefs should ever be allowed to own such a dangerous tool. Just buy or order readily prepared food. Why would you do this weird nerd thing called cooking anyway? Just choose from the official list of allowed foods.
The idea that we have to prevent people from being in control of their own computers — that's what a smartphone is — is deeply dystopian and authoritarian.
> People accidentally hurt themselves with kitchen knives every day. They are also very often used for violent crimes
People are rightfully nervous when they see someone walking down the street swinging a knife i.e openly misusing it or treating it casually
People don't realize how much software is being misused or treated too casually. They might be similarly bothered by lax security on databases and data leaks if they realized that it represented a threat to them
Yes, hold people accountable for their actions. Don't take away their freedom. We may prohibit individual actions that involve a general tool when they harm others. That is compatible with a free society. We may not prohibit fundamental tools¹ That is fundamentally incompatible with a free society. Especially when that tool forms the infrastructure for the flow of information and free speech.
How about the same thing we do when companies leak half-the-nation's personal data twice a month. Nothing.
When companies get hacked and millions lose their personal data, nobody cares. When individuals get hacked, it's a major issue that justifies locking down consumer's hardware to protect them from the burden of controlling their own devices. See how that works?
> In some cases, though, its prose is denser than Claude Fable 5's: sentences run longer and there are fewer paragraph breaks.”
This sentence reads like Claude wrote it. Perhaps it did, or perhaps Claude has learned to write like the folks who work at Anthropic?
(Had I edited this, I would have said that a colon is not the right separator here. The second clause does not _explain_ the first, per se, bur instead expands upon it. Consider instead: "In some cases, however, its prose is denser than Claude Fable 5's, with longer sentences and fewer paragraph breaks.")
Jeremy Irons's CEO character in _Margin Call_ explains his job like this:
> Do you care to know why I'm in this chair with you all? I mean, why I earn the big bucks?... I'm here for one reason and one reason alone. I'm here to guess what the music might do a week, a month, a year from now. That's it. Nothing more. And standing here tonight, I'm afraid that I don't hear - a - thing. Just... silence.
I'm sure many CEOs are bozos who can be replaced by a statistical averaging and guessing machine. But this skill of saying "it's time for us to dramatically change course because the music has stopped" seems to me very contrary to the current LLM paradigm. RL makes the chatbot agreeable ('aligned'). But changing course is inherently disagreeable. It makes enemies and people are going to try to talk you out of it at every turn. I think we'll need a new idea of what LLMs are for, and how to train them, before they can do that. (Much easier to mimic and therefore replace a Ballmer than a Nadella, in other words.)
Either there’s a huge lack of common sense at many places here or this story is leaving some details out.
reply