Those tariffs and the supply and quota thing is in response to a large player who heavily subsidizes their farmers to protect our farmers, who are generally small family operations.
I infer that by "our farmers", you mean Canadian farmers. You realize not everyone is you, right? In fact, there might even be some people who don't even know who you are or where you are.
That price tag is $100 more than the current $800 1TB Xbox Series X with a disc drive
No Democrat is going to bring down the debt.
Looking at history starting with President Carter: "Every Democratic president of the last half century has left with a deficit that was lower, measured as a share of GDP, than the one they came in with, except Obama, who left it unchanged. By contrast, every Republican president has left with a considerably higher deficit than what they inherited."
This only considers the party of the US President. Other analyses suggest that when the President and Congress are of different parties, the deficit is smaller than when they're of the same party.
And on a related topic: "Where does the money go?": the war against Iran has significantly depleted US stockpiles of weapons: "In a Monday report, researchers from the Center for Strategic and International Studies think tank estimated that fewer than 827 Patriot interceptors remain in US stockpiles, and fewer than 278 THAAD ballistic missile interceptors are left.
"Do we really need 11 carrier strike groups for another 30 years when no other country has more than one?"
Defense Secretary Robert Gates (May 6, 2010)
Fair insight, unfortunately.
Unfortunately that makes my point theoretical instead of actual in this instance - ultimately, they (we) can't be so short-sighted to believe that the 'accidental' damage will always be limited to a 'friendly' target. If they CAN escape boundaries (esp if they are testing in the wild) eventually they're going to hit a 3M or P&G who doesn't give a fuck, or who suffers major political/consumer fallout that isn't so easily firewalled within 'interested actors'.
But my original point persists: if we legally set '10x damages' as the precedent, even the wild valuations of these shareholders would have to be tempered (I guess I'm assuming SOME sense of reality in the process) to recognize the catastrophic/explosive liabilities & maybe invest with a little more trepidation?
I realize as I'm typing this it even sounds naive to me.
Then again, there is the little-remembered bit of Eisenhower's farewell address.
https://www.archives.gov/miles...
Immediately after his (much repeated) warning about the dangers of the military-industrial complex, he them went on:
Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.
In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.
Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been over shadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.
Funny few people remember that one. It sure looks like these scholars are chasing the money.
Except you are accepting their stated reasoning as gospel. They don't want to free up RAM because of a RAM shortage. They want to free it up to run local AI models on the phone, mostly for data harvesting, behavior recognition, and surveillance.
... Into a trash can that's owned by law enforcement.
IANAL, but don't lie and say you forgot your PIN/password. It is a crime to lie to a cop. Instead, just refuse to give it to them because you don't have to.
Tariffs are a tax collected by business for the government. Since Trump is the one who gave the illegal order, he would be responsible, but since the Supreme Court has ruled a president is untouchable, nothing will be done.
Next up will be a "national emergency" to prevent or disallow the results of the general election.
A few points:
1) maybe you didn't follow my argument: that's why it's farcical to believe that these companies are wasting money buying/destroying them when they are digitally available. Why would they waste $$ they don't have to?
2) FWIW, that's the 1901 edition, the 1915 3rd ed was (as the author says) largely rewritten with updated information not available for the 1901.
3) Do you realize your comment is literally justifying scanning and preserving books that aren't yet available?
Isn't there a clear bright line of liability here?
If the hugging face event cost hugging face (hypothetically) $250,000 to fix, how is the ai creator not instantly on the hook for a multiple of those damages?
It feels like we should quickly establish say a 10x multiplier as standard penalty for ai caused damages.
I know it's a shitty post facto tool and yes, it has failed plenty of times, but product liability is a well-precedented path (ie no new law approach has to be created) to compelling corporate responsibility. If this were the case, even a trillion dollar market value would feel shallow compared to potential liabilities.
Someone please name one rare, valuable book that has been destroyed. I'm still waiting.
Nobody has answered my criticisms of this particular Frankenstein story:
1) there's essentially nothing IN rare books that LLMs benefit from
2) rare old books are difficult to ocr in the first place, when reprints are both easier to scan AND cheaper.
This entire contrived hysteria is even more amusing as people basically don't read anymore, not generally. Oh heavens! They're destroying the books NOBODY READS? Really? That's what you're weeping about?
The only remaining meaningful contemporary book sales are women reading their own particular flavor of smut.
https://www.pensandpoison.org/...
Less than half of adults say they've read ONE BOOK in the last year.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ma...
I love old books. I'm currently reading Rogers 3rd ed (1915) of A History of Babylonia and Assyria and it's delightful. An absolute pleasure to read from the skill of the author, the comprehensiveness of the information (without a tedious agenda to flog, imagine!), to the very tactile experience of leather bound, deckle-edged paper. A joy every minute I'm reading it.
I would genuinely join you if there truly was a threat against old books.
But this? This is a manipulated hysteria contrived for some reason, maybe an experiment to see if they could spur nearly-illiterate sheeple to rise up to 'save' something they absolutely care nothing about.
Given its constituency, the only thing I expect to be "open" about [the Open Software Foundation] is its mouth. -- John Gilmore
