Thanks for all the downvotes with no cogent argument against my points. I will explain it very simply why you are engaging in nothing more than sophistry:
- My original post puts forth an interesting double standard, where when a non-cop finds a workaround to achieve their aim it's considered a 'hack' and a sign of being 'relentlessly resourceful' (a fundable, valued attribute!). When a cop uses a workaround to achieve their aim, which is to find criminals, it's considered grounds for outrage.
- Rather than engage on this point, you put forth analogies that don't address the hypocrisy, but rather use fine sounding language (relativity!) to make a completely different point that all laws should be treated in the spirit of how they were written, and not by what they actually say. And this takes some thinking on the reader's part to get there, as it's diverged significantly from the thrust of the first post, which, again, was to point out an interesting double standard.
- I try to get clarification on your now changed point
- You double down on the speed analogy, even further removed, with whataboutism and the logic that 'everyone is breaking the technical law so we need wide latitude in how laws are interpreted'. It was so far from my original observation that I don't even know why I responded. Perhaps you were trolling, IDK.
It's also interesting to me that my initial post got a couple quick upvotes and then got buried 5 min later. I don't claim foul play or anything. Just interesting. Kinda reminds me of the post against applying to YC that rocketed to the front page and then got flagged for removal. It's quite amazing how hiveminded this place is. And you know, I really have to question the value that I've gotten from this site in 15 years of reading it. I am positive that my life would be richer without it. So so long. This last part has nothing to do with you, just doing some reflecting. I'll see myself out.
I'll also add that I think it's a bad law if everyone breaks it, yet police look the other way. The beauty of a democratic republic is our elected leaders can change laws and pass new ones! So, just like this case where the people have a choice in what cops can do with surveillance tech, the people also have a choice in what our highways are limited to. The ideas are all really quite simple, and you don't have to go reaching for arguments about Einstein's theories to engage with them.
Your first bit isn't an example of a legal workaround, it's an example of attempted sophistry for illegal behavior. Are you implying that the cops in this case broke the law? I don't think that is clear.
Cops should be able to do what is within the law, and if we don't like that then we should change the laws.
I am also in favor of catching violent criminals. And as such I join you in the downvote fest. Of course, no one puts forth a cogent argument about why catching violent criminals with this technology is bad. Can it be abused? Yes. Was it abused here? No. Luckily, we live in a democracy where we make the rules. If we want a policy that law enforcement can't buy these systems, make that the law. If we want a policy where law enforcement can't use these systems in any capacity, then make that the law.
The article mentions a guy "charged with aggravated assault for allegedly charging toward someone with a knife". I'd say getting that guy into trial is good for NOT harming people
Funny how when one of us finds a workaround it's regarded as a hack and clever and a sign of how talented and 'relentlessly resourceful' we are. When a cop does it, oh god no the sky is falling. Asking a neighboring dept for an assist is within the law and from this own reporting not abused at all. It was used "at least 5 times" (ok, that is lazy, what is the upper bound?) and "no matches were returned". It's not some crazy surveillance state. It's cops trying to catch criminals. Which we need
I would like to see one on all Apple's latest advancements. The hype: "SwiftUI, async/await and actors, and declarative animations make building a robust app easier than ever". The shower: "Imperative programming is really easy for our little brains to handle. UIKit, Core Animation, and GCD are easier to work with and reason about"
> My guess is that none of this can easily be fixed. Systems like DALL-E and ChatGPT are essentially black boxes. GenAI systems don’t give attribution to source materials because at least as constituted now, they can’t.
Is it necessary to fix in the model itself? It seems a gate in the post processing pipeline that checks for copyright infringement could work, provided they can create another model that identifies copyrighted work (solving the problems of AI with more AI :/)
I'm not sure that's actually true, even though we hear it often. The artists I know (about a dozen) are all trying to figure out how to make _more_ money from their art so that they can continue making their art
I'm grateful for the last several days spent w my family, including my 18 month old nephew who made us all absurdly happy. He is the first of the next generation in my family. Just a wonderful time
Learning the contract is great, thank you for the work! How about the infra stack used by imessages? Does anyone have intel on that? The scale is incredible, which always makes me wonder how it can be so good while other apple web services (forums, dev portals, etc) can be so buggy and half baked
I'll bite on "just a fad in webdev circles", in case you are serious and not trolling. Railsworld is celebrating the 20th anniversary of Rails this year. As I'm sure you know, Rails is built on Ruby. 20 years does not fit my definition of fad.
Only one of the items in your "such as" list is unique to python's philosophy, and that is "there should be one way to do it". Ruby embraces the many ways to accomplish something, it's true. However, the three others are not unique to python. Ruby especially embraces "readability counts". And I can't think of anything in the ruby language itself that is implicit over explicit. Perhaps you are thinking of rails and comparing that to python.
I can also vouch that what the author is saying is true. I've started publishing my notes, and I found that after three weeks none of them were indexed (and yes I submit a sitemap through google webmaster tools). I have since started using the URL inspector tool and adding them one by one. That does work.
I love this because it's another example of us not really knowing what's going on and using blunt instruments. What should we do next? Blast it with ultrasound!
That's interesting. I've come to view execs and "leadership teams" as having a parasitic function on an otherwise vibrant host. It will be interesting to see if AI takes out the top instead of the bottom. My money is still on the bottom.
Your parent is confused. There's a difference between absorbing losses to stay alive while you try to get a product to market and deliberately losing money per sale because you want to drive the competitor out of business. No squinting required.
- My original post puts forth an interesting double standard, where when a non-cop finds a workaround to achieve their aim it's considered a 'hack' and a sign of being 'relentlessly resourceful' (a fundable, valued attribute!). When a cop uses a workaround to achieve their aim, which is to find criminals, it's considered grounds for outrage.
- Rather than engage on this point, you put forth analogies that don't address the hypocrisy, but rather use fine sounding language (relativity!) to make a completely different point that all laws should be treated in the spirit of how they were written, and not by what they actually say. And this takes some thinking on the reader's part to get there, as it's diverged significantly from the thrust of the first post, which, again, was to point out an interesting double standard.
- I try to get clarification on your now changed point
- You double down on the speed analogy, even further removed, with whataboutism and the logic that 'everyone is breaking the technical law so we need wide latitude in how laws are interpreted'. It was so far from my original observation that I don't even know why I responded. Perhaps you were trolling, IDK.
It's also interesting to me that my initial post got a couple quick upvotes and then got buried 5 min later. I don't claim foul play or anything. Just interesting. Kinda reminds me of the post against applying to YC that rocketed to the front page and then got flagged for removal. It's quite amazing how hiveminded this place is. And you know, I really have to question the value that I've gotten from this site in 15 years of reading it. I am positive that my life would be richer without it. So so long. This last part has nothing to do with you, just doing some reflecting. I'll see myself out.