IMO you highly underestimate the amount of processing and storage video surveillance requires. There is just no good way to determine if you took that pen or made the newly illegal handgesture towards the wrong person 12 years ago unless you have enough storage to keep all the footage around and the processing power to search through it or prepare it for new types of queries in reasonable time.
Also, have you considered AI being necessary to fill in for missing surveillance footage if the cameras are failing (the ruling class)? E.g. the whole Epstein (PR) disaster could have been avoided if the cameras could have been kept running and the footage post-processed in time.
To me the major distinctions are near full functionality even if I'm offline and the app hasn't been used in a long time and offline-first design with all major assets being available for download ahead of time and/or transferable between devices without re-downloading
Right, of course it's those who had the most time to accumulate wealth in the wealthier nations and professions who are most opposed to one of the most expensive subscriptions in history taking over more and more professions.
> Doing it on demand still utilizes their cached version, so it saves a trip to the origin, but doesn’t require doubling the cache size. They can still cache the results if the same site is scraped multiple times, but this saves having to cache things that are never going to be requested.
Isn't this solving a slightly, but very significantly different problem?
You could serve the very same data in two different ways: One to present to the users and one to hand over to scrapers. Of course, some sites would be too difficult or costly to transform into a common underlying cache format, but people who WANT their sides accessible to scrapers could easily help the process along a bit or serve their site in the necessary format in the first place.
But the key is:
A tool using a "pre-scraped" version of a site has very likely very different requirements of how a CDN caches this site. And this could be easily customizable by those using this endpoint.
Want a free version? Ok, give us the list of all the sites you want, then come back in 10min and grab everything in one go, the data will be kept ready for 60s. Got an API token? 10 free near-real-time request for you and they'll recharge at a rate of 2 per hour. Want to play nice? Ask the CDN to have the requested content ready in 3 hours. Got deep pockets? Pay for just as many real-real-time requests as you need.
What makes this so different is that unless customers are willing to hand over a lot of money, you dont need to cache anything to serve requests at all. Potentially not even later if you got enough capacity to serve the data for scheduled requests from the storage network directly.
You just generate an immediate promise response to the request telling them to come back later. And depending on what you put into that promise, you've got quite a lot of control over the schedule yourself.
- Got a "within 10min" request but your storage network has plenty if capacity in 30s? Just tell them to come back in 30s.
- A customer is pushing new data into your network around 10am and many bots are interested in getting their hands on it as soon as possible, making requests for 10am to 10:05? Just bundle their requests.
- Expected data still not around at 10:05? Unless the bots set an "immediate" flag (or whatever) indicating that they want whatever state the site is in right now, just reply with a second promise when they come back. And a third if necessary... and so on.
Interesting, never heard anyone calling some place a Tier 1.5 city. Is this a recent development as "almost official" as the Tiers itself, something obvious I just never picked up on or people taking pride in their Tier 2s doing really well?
Also why does the Tier list keep expanding downwards? Wasn't being called a Tier 4 basically exclusively an insult? Sub culture not being satisfied with just embracing rotting anymore, but now racing for the bottom of the sea?
$5 is probably too much, tho. I'd be looking more at the $.2 to $1 range.
Maybe a 3 to 4 tier inbox. Known and trusted user being able to contact you without paying, a high value inbox for the $1+ range, a low value inbox for the $.2 range emails wont be auto-deleted in and a very low value inbox emails will be deleted in depending on the amount paid, with free mails being gone within e.g. an hour, all the way up to e.g. a month for $.19 mails.
Then unify those inboxes and set up notifications to the users' likings.
Also, I'd normalize e.g. 10% going to the e-mail service providers and enshrine that amount into the protocol right away. Otherwise the protocol wont get a lot of attention from the major providers and if it does, the provider taking his share is going to become normalized anyway. But then the split isn't going to be in favor for the users. Which isn't negative per-se, but it'd be nice to have at least one type of service where this is split is reversed. And it is fair to assume whoever takes the larger split has more influence on the prices, potentially either making this feature useless or pricing very casual users out of the service.
Isn't Shanghai a Tier 1 city? IMO it's not very representative of the whole country.
It's also not like China is an overachieving outlier, but western nations actively having been sabotaged by its leadership at least since 1990 and MUCH MUCH more so since occupy wallstreet.
FFS Germany is blowing up its nuclear powerplants on a never before seen record breaking schedule so that a potential successor government cant reactivate them.
Exactly, this was the whole point of Trump calling climate change a hoax to benefit China, but somehow this got twisted by the media into not denying climate change being an anti-Trump position.
The base then started demanding this from their reps and Trump almost picked up on this himself. It took years to undo that damage and even now we're barely back at a pro-clean air, pro-solar and pro nuclear position...
> it only applies if it is intended to and corruptly accepted as an influence on official decision-making.
The majority opinion argues that this is one of the primary differences between a bribe and a gift of gratitude.
> A gift as a thank-you, post-hoc, where the prosecution cannot prove the gift was part of an effort to "corruptly" influence a prior decision, was always fine under any interpretation.
No, which is a large part of this whole argument. The interpretation the government used and was (indirectly) backed by the minority opinion, was, that the statute would not cover "innocuous or obviously benign" gratuities. But what counts as "innocuous or obviously benign" was never established. And this "innocuous or obviously benign" line is EXACTLY what distinguished between whether a gratitude was accepted with a corrupt state of mind.
And that's where we arrive back at the core of the problem.
For a bribe, the question of whether or not a corrupt state of mind existed can be judged at minimum by if the official act was corrupted. Usually this standard doesn't exist for gratitudes. These do not require a corrupt state of mind to be criminal, but their criminality derives solely from the heightened standard of responsibility of an official when performing official duties. Just like a heightened standard of responsibility when operating a motor vehicle or carrying.
> If students said "if you give us a good grade, then we'll give you a Best Teacher Ever mug," that is functionally identical to a bribe but is now legal.
Not really a good example, because unless that's something like a theater performance there is basically no way forward from this, which could end with the teacher handing out good grades and receiving a mug from these students without this scenario becoming bribery.
And gratitudes do not become legal in general. It's just that the involvement of the federal government ends and states are now free to handle such cases however they think is appropriate.
IMO that's not the case, because if a legislation looses its intended focus, it gains a lot of arbitrariness in return. The more interpretations you consider valid, the more options you can choose from when applying it.
So, obviously, the legislation had to be returned to a single interpretation, the one Congress intended (or the one the court thinks is the best if you believe courts should hold legislative power).
Which leads directly to the second issue: Which was the interpretation Congress intended?
> From dissent of disagreeing SCOTUS justice: "absurd and atextual reading of the statute is one only today’s Court could love."
The majority opinion analyses this issue with 6 different approaches, including a textual one, arriving at similar conclusions from each.
The dissenting opinion on the other hand argues, that all other approaches but the textual one should be rejected.
The dissenting opinion's textual interpretation strongly asserts, that Congress intended with "accepts or agrees to accept, anything of value
from any person, intending to be influenced or rewarded" to address both bribes (intending to be influenced) and gratitudes (intending to be rewarded).
The majority opinion argues that if you were to divorce the concept of a reward from the prior intent during the influenced/rewarded actions in a statute that criminalizes accepting something of value rather than the intent itself (because how would that even be possible?), you end up with a situation in which being promised something of value, but only receiving it after the influenced actions have been completed, would no longer fulfill the requirements to be considered a bribe.
Basically the majority argues that if they are correct (666 being a bribery rather than a combined bribery + gratitudes statute), Congress still would have had to use language at least equivalent to the one at hand and therefore additional tests to deduce the intent of the 99th Congress can not be disregarded.
Not really, because that's the core issue had hand, but I might not have made my intention with the argument sufficiently clear.
The question the court looked at: Did Congress intend "receiving gifts as a bribe" and "receiving gifts as gratitude" to be two separate crimes for non-federal employees as it is the case for federal ones (In which case handling the issue would have been left up to the states)?
The majority opinion refused to consider the moral argument (although they snuck it in in their argument on a lack of fair notice), but IMO that's by far the most intuitive one, when you allow yourself to look at the problem from the legislative perspective. By looking at the extremes it becomes very clear that there are two very different problems:
Imagine a group of students doing much better than their peers on their final exam thanks to the efforts of their teacher and they gift him a "Best teacher ever" mug.
But now reverse the causality:
Imagine a teacher demanding to be gifted a "Best teacher ever" mug before putting extra effort into preparing his students for their final exam. The group that gifted him the mug does much better than their peers as a result.
IMO these should be two very different crimes, but there is also a valid argument that they are about equivalent, as pursued by the dissenting opinion.
But that's not something a court should legislate.
I never was contacted during the trial and only read about it almost 2 years later in the news.
Also, he's a man of strong faith, not that he knows he'll win in the end, but more like that it just doesn't have the same importance for him as it would have for us. I only had a short opportunity to ask him about it since then and basically he doesn't think there is just about any chance to win this, what he's most worried about is ruining the public image of his students (including his accusers) and since his order allowed him to rejoin and start over, in practice, he got all he wanted to ask for already.
> Except for the victims of sexual abuse perpetrated by their clergy.
I honestly wonder how much of this is made up. Given the size of whole organization and it holding onto its weird priciples regarding the personal relationships of its members (introduced in the far past to limit the secular power of its clergy), there certainly will be SOME cases.
But in the one case a frater, who I knew, got convicted, he definitely didn't do it. He was accused by several independent former students and even some of the staff backed the students claims with first hand accounts of him having been alone with some of the students at the time. This supposedly happened on a trip with tight schedules, so all accounts and stated times were quite specific, even in the pre-smartphone era.
The only problem: He wasn't with the group at that time at all. I screwed up embarrassingly (and the staff, too, leaving a young student stranded in the middle of nowhere) and he thought he could slip out, come pick me up and nobody (but maybe me with him) would get in trouble over it. Turned out he forgot refueling, both of us stayed at a pastor's guest house and he called the group telling them, that they should go ahead without us and that we would drive to the event directly on our own. The supposed abuse was claimed to have happened at another short stay of the group where they spent a day visiting some mine before joining with us again.
Almost 3 decades later he got railroaded in court, me learning about it in the news.
The Catholic Church was funding a lot of research for a long time. E.g the Elon Musk of his time, Galileo, was famously sponsored by it and when asked to contrast his theories against the established view, sperged out so hard against the people tasked with reviewing his publications, they tossed him under the carriage.
Friendly reminder he EXPLICITLY ran on protecting debt-limits in the German constitution, got elected on those promises and then changed course literally on day 1 after being elected.
I'm honestly surprised this issue in general didn't cause nearly every company to immediately ban all AI.
Why do these companies put so much effort into fighting right to repair to avoid IP leaks any halfway serious company could reverse engineer in a week, but on the other hand encourage their employees to vibe all company secrets into the cloud?
Also, have you considered AI being necessary to fill in for missing surveillance footage if the cameras are failing (the ruling class)? E.g. the whole Epstein (PR) disaster could have been avoided if the cameras could have been kept running and the footage post-processed in time.