The view among "authorities" is certainly something I find relevant in assessing a highly opinionated but thinly sourced medium article from someone who, respectfully, I've never heard of and know nothing about. Certainly it would be defeasible by a closer look at the research itself. But, barring that, it's a very useful heuristic.
I'm not suggesting you should take the medium article at face value either. Just that if you don't know enough to evaluate the evidence, you don't know enough to dismiss any particular opinion.
People are far too willing, today, to defer their thinking blindly to a consensus of opinions, but worse, to accuse anyone who also doesn't defer of being malicious.
This. Lawyers can use AI tools. But an attorney is ultimately responsible for everything that goes out the door. So they had better check the output from their AI tool carefully. In most firms (at least most good ones) someone would check every citation that goes out the door, even if it was written by an experienced attorney, so it speaks volumes that someone would fail to check citations generated by an LLM.
The phone looks much nicer without a case. And in my 10+ ceaseless years, I’ve only damaged my phone once (and, in that case, I doubt that a thin silicone case would have saved me). And in that one case, I just needed to replace the front glass. Cost about $40 IIRC.
So why would I use a case?
Your mileage may vary, though, if you have kids, are a woman (fewer/shallower pockets), etc.
I don't see the contradiction "paying partners to secure browser placement" =/ "exclusivity." This just means you can have partner deals, but that they can't be exclusive, right?
Well, they pay $20 billion to Apple, Firefox etc to be default and now that can't be exclusive - but you could always change search engines so in practice perhaps nothing changes at all.
If it can't be exclusive, that means other providers must be allowed to pay to be default on some portion of installs? If so, wouldn't that result in the basis of payment changing to a basis which takes into account the number or (e.g., advertising demographics-based) desirability of the default installs that Google receives, rather than a global amount based on what is expected to be aggregate number and desirability of all users of the product covered by the agreement?
Forbidding Google from requiring exclusivity is not the same thing as mandating that Apple accept payments from others.
Google can afford to pay more per user/click because of scale economies; their cost per user/click is lower. So, great, Google will pay Apple $20/user/year on a nonexclusive basis, and Firefox or whoever are free to match or exceed that, so long as they don't mind losing money on every user.
I don't see how it's different from what happens today. Google isn't an exclusive search option in any browser.
Are you saying that 'til now, Apple/Firefox _only_ took money for search default from Google due to the wording of the contract? In future, all the search vendors can pay all the browser makers for a position on a list of defaults?
I'm honestly not sure which point you're making in this thread. Are you saying that government should somehow make people whole for the loss of their coastal property? Or are you making the point that the government has no business interfering with the property rights of others? There seems to be a tension here, because I don't see how you could do the latter without also doing the latter — i.e., making coastal property owners whole requires taking someone else's property (either money or real property) and giving it to them. Or maybe you'd propose that we resettle them onto federal lands? (Even in that case, taxpayers bear a significant opportunity cost.)
My original point was that it is easy for people to advocate for the government to take people's property away, when they have no property of their own or no skin in the game.
My other point was just a wider one on moral hazard, and if it applies to coastal property (in that people bear their own costs) should it apply to EG obesity (where people should bear the cost of healthcare issues). If not, why is property a separate case?
To me, "full self driving" means you can hop in the back seat and have a nap. If you have to keep your hands near the wheel and maintain attention to the road then... shrugs not really the same. IMHO we're in the "uncanny valley" of vehicular automation.
I would add that "full self-driving" also means that the car company or the self-driving development company holds all liability in a car accident that the owner has none. Even Tesla right now states that the owner holds the liability in any accident. [0]
There are no proper retention laws with car manufacturers and self-driving development companies that I know of.
everything a layman would call "AI" is in the "uncanny valley" at the moment!
- Boston Dynamics' Atlas does not move as gracefully as a human
- LLM writing and code is oh-so-easy to spot
- the output of diffusion models is indistinguishable from a photo... until you look at it for longer than 5 seconds and decide to zoom in because "something's wrong"
Maybe it's because we get use to it and therefore recognize it easier, but it does seem to get more and more recognizable instead of the opposite, doesn't it?
I think I could recognize a ChatGPT email way easier in 2025 than if you showed me the same email written by gpt-3.5.
> Yet now in 2025, they had a total victory, they've annihilated all phone spam, and I didn't notice for months. No media release, no trumpeting from the roof tops. They just quietly and effectively did their job.
But if I was to speculate ... The ACMA effectively killed email spam originating from Australian businesses years (decades?) ago. The government passed legislation allowing ACMA to impose big fines on companies that sent spam, they then set set up a web form you could upload spam emails to, and a couple of years later there was no email spam ... from Australia. It didn't reduce email spam much, as most spam originated outside of Australia. The other possible choke point was email Inbox suppliers like Google and Hotmail, but they are also located outside of Australia, beyond the ACMA's reach. Still, it did mean when I set up an email / web server for a local club, if I black listed most of the world's IP addresses outside of Australia, it killed all email spam.
The question in my mind was: if they could do it for email, why couldn't they do it for phones after years of trying? They had stopped Australian business from sending phone spam of course, so it all came from internationals just as with email. But this time they did have jurisdiction over the equivalent of the "inbox providers" - the Australia telco's. Most of the overseas spam did come from Australia phone numbers. If it didn't people would just ignore it.
I can only guess those telco's fought the good fight to be allowed to send and charge for spam successfully for a long time. I don't know why they were successful in that fight for as long as they were, but the timing does look suggestive. The USA equivalent of the Republicans run the place federally during most of that time. Now, partly due to example set by Trump, they lost in a landslide to our equivalent of Democrats. These "Democrats" won three years ago too, but now they look to moving as if they have a mandate to do whatever they want.
While this mob speaks in woke tones, there looks to be an iron will fist behind their "kind" words. They are getting the ACMA(?) to enforce age verification scheme internet access for example, something I think is worse than a waste of time. But they are hard and determined taskmasters, so they may make it stick.
At least in the US, claiming that you are a nonprofit implies that contributions are tax deductible. Claiming that you are a nonprofit when contributions are not tax deductible might be considered fraudulent.
Not true. There are different classes of nonprofit and they are not all tax deductible. Some nonprofits opt to forgo pursuing that status because it involves a lot of extra administration/filing requirements.
You're responding to a different point than the one I made. It's true that being a "nonprofit" doesn't logically entail that donations will be tax decudtible. But it still implies it to potential donors. The former is a matter of logic, the latter is a matter of psychology. Both are relevant.
Yes, there are multiple classes of nonprofit, not all of which are tax deductible. But it is also true that holding yourself out to the public as a "nonprofit" has the potential to mislead because it may imply to potential donors that contributions would be tax deductible. That is why responsible (or at least well advised) nonprofits disclose which they are, because claiming you're a "nonprofit" in marketing materials, without further explanation, can mislead potential donors.
They are already very much in breach of US law, which they have always been clear about. That aside, they don’t claim that contributions to them are tax deductible.
I would love to see someone try to explain to the IRS why all those purchases of Amazon gift cards and Monero for the transparently illegal organization should be deductible though
If they want to serve the U.S. market, which they do, they still have to deal with the FCC and comply with U.S. regulations, regardless of the launching country.
“This allows you to mold soft plastics (which you can buy from the company, also called Saltgator, or a hobby shop or fishing-lure supplier) and mold a piece up to 250mL (8.4 oz) in volume in about 15 minutes.”
reply