The top 1% of people make 20.7% of the country's income. Given progressive tax rates, they should be paying a lot more than 40% of Federal income tax revenue, but rates don't scale enough, and aren't lax enough on other classes.
Being available for use by militaries is incredibly irresponsible, regardless of what scope is specifically claimed, because of the inherent gravity of the situation when a military is wrong. The US military maintains a good deal of infrastructure in the US; putting into their hands an unreliable, incompetent calculator puts lives at risk.
It would be structured as a non-profit (there are no teeth to a PBC; the structure is entirely to avoid liability, and if you have no trust in the executive body of an organization, it has zero meaningful signal).
It would have a different leadership team.
It would have a leader who could steelman his own position competently. Machines of Loving Grace was less redeeming than Lenat's old stump speeches for his position, despite Amodei starting up in an industry significantly more geared for what he had to say, and Lenat having an incredibly flexible sense of morality. Its leader would not have a history working for Chinese companies and jingoistically begin advocating for export controls.
It would have different employees than the people I know who are working there, who have a history of picking the most unethical employers they can find, in a fashion not dissimilar to how Illumination Entertainment's "Minions" select employers.
The subway has millions of riders in a day. One hundred and fifty complaints per precinct (which is a generous estimation) is nothing, and the NYPD is a failure of an organization that pays over half a hundred million dollars a year on misconduct lawsuits. NYPD officers have a higher crime rate than the people of New York.
Luckily, similar to how they made a choice for these constraints, you also chose yours. Both are artificial constraints; nobody is forced to solve problems in an esolang, and very few people are forced into having kids. You could have chosen their constraints instead. You chose a constraint set difficult for you; they chose a constraint set difficult for them, and the wonderful thing is that you both can work on the problems at your own pace, under the constraints you've chosen for yourselves.
Lots of things are wasteful. Punishing a bad actor who is actively infringing upon your legally-enshrined rights is better than buying a sportscar with that money.
As it says in that link, the author of said link applied for a software patent after the initial GPL violations (that even in your article, he doesn't apologize for; he simply points out that he was a jerk about it while not meaningfully accepting guilt). If you look at the actual events of that situation, Pearson acted far worse than what you would imagine from just reading his own words, years later:
Pearson never made amends; he continued his bad actions long after being called out (and possibly still does).
The correct solution to bad actors is to raze them to the ground; Matt isn't wrong in this. He has the means and is doing something principled with them: Destroying a bad actor.
This should be encouraged; it is how capitalism is supposed to work.
Have you ever been pulled over by a cop and given a warning? Many people have.
As long as there's any amount of leeway in enforcement of the law, things like courtesy cards will exist. All it is is a little nudge to say, "Hey. I'm one of you and yours. Let's let it slide."
That will continue to exist even if the cards entirely disappear.
There's nothing sexualised about it. The person is of an ambiguous build and facing away from the camera. The article does more sexualising than the photo itself does, in the typical way that British media likes to oversexualise and play scandal to sell papers.
It obviously can. My first sentence was "uBO already runs on iOS." You asked if Orion was compatible with "normal desktop Firefox and Chrome extensions." There's no distinction between desktop Firefox extensions and mobile ones! Addons on both are just standard WebExtensions, and I've already noted that it runs both Chrome and Firefox extensions.
Your lack of understanding of what browser extensions are is exactly why it would be better if Apple explicitly banned browser extensions from the App Store. Ignorance is a malware vector, and even you, a commentator on Hacker News, do not understand the browser extension ecosystem. Instead, they're taking a bunch of flak for something they aren't even doing, all the while iOS has had a browser supporting uBO for years.
Chrome on Android doesn't support browser extensions. Google is an advertising company. They are not incentivized to allow extensions. Extensions block their ads, and are a risk vector for mobile users, who are often young, inexperienced, and running outdated systems software.
> What's Orion
A web browser, using the same Webkit as everybody else on iOS, with support for browser extensions.
People give Apple too much flak for the mismanagement or warped incentives of browser vendors. Lack of extensions in existing browsers isn't their fault to any degree.
> and is it compatible with normal desktop Firefox and Chrome extensions, or with the mobile ones?
There's not a separate spec for "mobile" Firefox extensions and desktop browser extensions. Google WebExtensions. It's an open standard that desktop Firefox follows and that Chrome almost does.
uBO already runs on iOS. Orion is compatible with Firefox and Chrome extensions. The lack of extensions in mobile browsers is a sign of Mozilla's decay, not a sign of Apple being unnecessarily restrictive. They also don't care about you having extensions on Android; their most recent redesign left Android Firefox users without extensions for months.
Mozilla is an ad-supported company from every angle: Pocket, search deal, the ads built into Firefox. Why don't they get more of the blame for the current state of the browser ecosystem?
This is also something (anecdotally) common with Gen X parents. That being said, deadbeats have been a relatively common trope since the Silents or before. Is it really that surprising that, now that it's possible for both parties in the parenting equation to be deadbeats, they're taking that option?
This doesn't seem like a new aspect of moral decay: People have always been terrible, and neither sex is inherently morally superior or magically more empathetic or responsible.
It becoming equitable is just another side effect of suffrage and no-fault divorce, something decided upon by the Silents, Boomers and Xers. It's still probably better than the prior situation, but acknowledging the fact that it's a consequence of the legislative choices of society is probably better than just randomly blaming Millennials for something that isn't unique to them.
Meta obviously has the money; $135B revenue, $88B in expenses, $18B in debt.
Even assuming the current push toward general AI is a bubble, which is not unreasonable, the company can afford to throw away billions of dollars. It doesn't matter at all; they own the money printer and can make as many bets in as many markets as they want.
The same GPUs that are presently being used to create semi-open AI projects can just as easily be repurposed to power a public launch of their Codec avatars, which are lightyears ahead of what Apple has, or for better prediction engines in what are quite probably the best sales engines of all time: Their websites.
Their data centers will be useful for the future of selling products to gullible consumers: Short-form video, which is the first chance in years that they've had to meaningfully take market share from Google.
Even assuming it was all vanity, Zuckerberg has earned the right at this stage in his career to make vanity plays. He still has majority control over his company, which shareholders have insisted upon, and he has an almost untarnished record of making incredible long-term bets that seem irrational at the time (Instagram acquisition, Whatsapp acquisition, arguably the Oculus acquisition).
He's earned drastic amounts of money for speculators, who have done little to deserve any of it. It would be a strange thing to argue that the speculators suddenly have a better grasp of what he's doing than he does; there are millions of speculators, but only one person with a track record like Zuckerberg.
There are other countries, ones where it's legal to do medical experimentation upon any consenting party. Unsurprisingly, they don't create significant amounts of novel drugs. Why? Because the US system is more profitable, and, similar to how writing proprietary software is the most common way to earn a living as a software engineer, people like money.
Similar to platforms that claim to "democratize" a given hobby while at the end of the day being proprietary SaaS, people can claim as good of motives as they want, but at the end of the day, they want to make enough money to sit on their heels. The government strongly incentivizes drugs that are economically worthless without it.
The US system ensures that everyone gets paid. Laissez-faire drug development wouldn't. As better in theory as it may be, just like free software, in practice, you'd probably get fewer returns than the controlled system, just because people aren't altruistic, and nobody cares about niche diseases that doesn't have direct motive.
> Sure. But I draw the line when people try to force their anti-American agenda on people.
This doesn't happen, though; there are a lot of universities that love pro-American sentiment in professors. A university deciding to be anti-American seems fine, and quite American. As an employer, it should be able to choose who it wants to offer positions. No one is forced, they just fail to incentivize prestigious universities in maintaining their employment under conditions they desire.