It's right in the text of the EO: they intend to argue that the state laws are preempted by existing federal regulations, and they also direct the creation of new regulations to create preemption if necessary, specifically calling on the FCC and FTC to make new federal rules to preempt disfavored state laws. Separately it talks about going to Congress for new laws but mostly this lays out an attempt to do it with executive action as much as possible, both through preemption and by using funding to try to coerce the states.
There's a reasonable argument that nationwide regulation is the more efficient and proper path here but I think it's pretty obvious that the intent is to make toothless "regulation" simply to trigger preemption. You don't have to do much wondering to figure out the level of regulation that David Sacks is looking for.
Yeah, it’s just the normal Blue Certified process. It’s an interesting look to dig the checklists up for various CPO programs from various OEMs to see what they demand.
I definitely got one or more of those stickers with some Intel SATA SSDs... sadly those I think have been the ones I had the worst luck with. I think they were one of those series that had some really bad write amplification problem or something like that, due to I think some issue with their power-saving implementation.
They aren't always entirely within their rights to refuse to give up your data: the third party doctrine doesn't transfer your expectation of privacy to the third party holding your data, it says that neither you nor the third party has an expectation of privacy for that information. Subpoenas and court orders and other process short of a warrant can compel disclosure of this "third party" data.
This is why there's a patchwork of statutes requiring Fourth Amendment ish processes for things like wiretaps and emails.
I know there's value to recording the selection process and all that but it's a little funny to have a review that ends up only including one study: at that point just give me a link, not a paper.
No, the post is definitely complaining about articles written by LLMs:
"In the past few years, arXiv has been flooded with papers. Generative AI / large language models have added to this flood by making papers – especially papers not introducing new research results – fast and easy to write."
"Fast forward to present day – submissions to arXiv in general have risen dramatically, and we now receive hundreds of review articles every month. The advent of large language models have made this type of content relatively easy to churn out on demand, and the majority of the review articles we receive are little more than annotated bibliographies, with no substantial discussion of open research issues."
Surely a lot of them are also about LLMs: LLMs are the hot computing topic and where all the money and attention is, and they're also used heavily in the field. So that could at least partially account for why this policy is for CS papers only, but the announcement's rationale is about LLMs as producing the papers, not as their subject.
I started with Debian on CDs, but used Gentoo for years after that. Eventually I admitted that just Ubuntu suited my needs and used up less time keeping it up to date. I do sometimes still pull in a package that brings a million dependencies for stuff I don't want and miss USE flags, though.
I'd agree that the manual Gentoo install process, and those tinkering years in general, gave me experience and familiarity that's come in handy plenty of times when dealing with other distros, troubleshooting, working on servers, and so on.
2600 got enjoined from linking to DeCSS and that got upheld on appeal, on the basis that linking violated the DMCA's anti-trafficking provisions. From the district court case:
> Defendants then linked their site to those "mirror" sites, after first checking to ensure that the mirror sites in fact were posting DeCSS or something that looked like it, and proclaimed on their own site that DeCSS could be had by clicking on the hyperlinks on defendants' site. By doing so, they offered, provided or otherwise trafficked in DeCSS.
The appeal was mostly about whether the DMCA and/or the specific injunction in question violated the First Amendment, and the court found that it didn't.
(Universal City Studios vs. Reimerdes at the district court level, Universal City Studios v. Corley at the circuit)
Yeah; you need an enforcement system too. And some way to amend rules and adjudicate. But we could implement all that if we actually wanted to. Eg, have broad rules to refuse to peer with anyone who doesn’t agree with the rules of the internet.
That is in essence already in place just for CSAM. We just pretend the internet is a free for all in all other cases.
Yes, think of all the paper wasted printing the US constitution. It would have been much more environmentally friendly if they stored it in a blockchain! polite coughs
There's a reasonable argument that nationwide regulation is the more efficient and proper path here but I think it's pretty obvious that the intent is to make toothless "regulation" simply to trigger preemption. You don't have to do much wondering to figure out the level of regulation that David Sacks is looking for.
reply