Even so, law enforcement would also have access to the cellular records of countless individuals, the vast majority of whom were merely passing by a location at the 'wrong' time

What if, instead of asking: "Give us the list of everybody using this tower during this period", police asked for something narrower, like: "Give us the list of everybody using this tower during this period, and this other tower at this other period" (which is, what police would've done themselves)? What would make the request palatable to the Court — and Slashdot?

Enough AND-clauses until the resulting list is shorter than a certain number? 500? 50? 5? What if it becomes so short, the phone company employee(s) themselves can identify the suspect(s)?

I can't place a Polymarket bet on there being a hurricane and then go out and cause a hurricane.

Admitting your weakness is the first step towards growing strong!

Seriously, though, I do acknowledge this as a (potentially) valid concern in my next paragraph. But there are lots of other cases, where the bettor either has insider knowledge prior to betting, or can affect the outcome afterwards — both legally and otherwise. Lawmakers betting on financial markets' moves in response to their own legislation is still legal, for example. Other methods exist for the rest of us.

Yet, this proposal is limited sorely to setting wildfires and for the most bullshit reasons of all: "all so the rich and powerful can profit". Hence my contempt...

"Normal" meaning what would be a normalized average of other countries. The typical US national park is bigger than all but the biggest parks throughout Europe. They're absent even fire trails throughout most of them, and they do not have nearby civilian residences for wanderers to happen upon.

Larger parks are closer to what would be considered "remote wilderness" in the furthest extents of Asia. You've got some of these places just hours from our biggest metropolitan cities.

Really, the only places in the world which compare would be China and Russia, and large parts of South America. But in most cases those are actually wilderness, all but inaccessible.

This has to be a troll. Nobody on Slashdot is actually this stupid.

I often wonder how all these people who believed that COVID vaccines were a plot to sterilize or murder humanity have justified to themselves the continued-unchanged existence of babies-in-specific and humans-in-general, respectively.

He isn't even an expert. He's a hype man, a salesman.

Frankly, he's engaging in a zero sum fallacy. Because it's not perfect, it can't be done. But it quite clearly has been done, successfully, with a drastic reduction in fatalities and injury. Is it perfect? No. But it's better than anything Waymo has been able to achieve with fancy intrusive useless sensors (there's nothing quite as infuriating as getting in a Waymo and having it just sit there confused about the homeless guy standing on the curb), but it's made by Waymo's biggest potential competitor - Tesla.

You forget that Tesla's now got a (small) working Tesla robotaxi fleet, and their capabilities are far superior to what Waymo offers.

That isn't half of it.

How many people in the audience own a Tesla?

He's talking to people who, if they are not personally intimate with fully self-driving capabilities in a Tesla, are at least aware of the capability.

It's like Steve Jobs going to Xerox to give a talk about why mice are superior input devices for navigation over just a keyboard.

Same.

I'm almost hopeful that in a few years, Starlink Mobile will be the push I need to change. I'm waiting until then, or it gets even worse with T-Maybe

Offering bets on destructive wildfires threatens to minimize communities' suffering

Totally different from hurricanes, floods, and tsunamis, right?

There's also the heightened risk -- according to state and local fire officials -- that individuals could be tempted to commit arson in order to make sure their bets are successful

This is, actually, a valid concern. I don't think, freedoms — including the freedom to bet one's own money — should be curtailed by such concerns, but it is valid.

Funny, how the authors don't hate the would-be arsonists — nowhere close to their disdain for the "rich and powerful", who might (might not!) profit from the betting...

The act of surveilling someone is a form of search (Carpenter v. United States (2018)

You are incorrect. What the Carpenter determined, was not about generally "surveilling", but the particular act of requesting historical cell-site location records from wireless carriers.

The Court's majority did rule, that the 4th Amendment protects reasonable expectation of privacy, and the collection of the particular records violated this. But not in general case. What's between your cellphone and the cell-tower can be expected — reasonably to stay private. (Though personally I disagree even with that — anyone carrying an active radio should not expect it to be unnoticed.) But a visible presence in public — detectable by unaided human senses — definitely not. Police have tailed suspects for as long as law enforcement existed — and Bill of Rights' authors certainly knew about the practice existence — and there is nothing wrong about it.

Further, they didn't extend the "third-party doctrine" to the particular case of cell-site records, but they didn't repudiate it completely either.

While the average citizen is allowed to record anything they see in public [...] When the government does it, it is considered a breach of an individuals 4th amendment rights

Nope, it does not — not per Carpenter. Maybe, that's how things should be — though I'm not certain even of that. But it is not, how they are. And the list of earlier court-decisions (which I already posted twice) — the Knotts in particular — shows it.

Further, I was not talking about "the average citizen" — I was talking about a police officer. If one can watch you — without a warrant — he can also record you.

Hawaiian eruption last a long time and the lava flows persist for years.

Your effusive eruptions last on average no longer than our effusive eruptions. The fact that Iceland also has phreatic eruptions doesn't change the fact that most of ours are effusive basalt, just like yours, with corresponding eruptive dynamics. Also, FYI, for a given total effusion volume, slow eruptions are easier to divert. Diversion is much more challenging when an equivalent volume of lava is effused in a short period of time. And it's not like you have vastly larger average lava flows than we do. The largest lava flow on Earth in the Holocene (modern era) is in Iceland (the THjórsárhraun - 900km2, 25km3, 70km underground travel followed by 130-140km on the surface). For comparison, Hawaii's largest holocene flow is the Ailaau Flow at 430km2, 4-5km3, and 40km.

If we want to limit to more recent flows (since Ailaau was fairly recent, in case you think Iceland stopped having big eruptions), Iceland's biggest *after* Alia'au was Laki (1783–1784 AD), at 600km2, 15km3, and 80km. It lasted for 8 months to 2 years, depending on whether you count the concurrent Grímsvötn eruption as part of it. So much gas was released from that huge volume of lava that despite us being nearly arctic (polar volcanoes have much lower near-term climate impacts than equatorial volcanoes), it caused a winter so severe that the Mississippi froze at New Orleans and ice was seen floating in the Gulf of Mexico.

We simply get bigger effusive eruptions than you, full stop. Not all eruptions, of course, both of us have a huge variance in eruption scales and dynamics. But trying to claim ours are somehow "easier" is just not in line with the facts. Also, Hawaiian eruptions tend to occur on terrain that slopes significantly more consistently toward the sea, aka where you want to divert lava toward; on flatter or less-consistently-angled terrain, lava "piles up" more and makes it easier to overtop berms.

There is a practical side that it is easier to move people and build coffee shacks

I'm not talking about "coffee shacks", I'm talking about whole communities and beloved places. In particular, I'm thinking about the 2018 Lower Puna eruption. Of course the homes near the vents in Leilani Estates were doomed, but there is absolutely NO reason why you should have lost anywhere close to as much as you did so far from the vents. Losing Kapoho Bay for example was simply cultural fatalism. I watched a person crying on the news saying she didn't understand why Pele chose to take such a beautiful place. It's not Pele who took it, it's your insane resistance against doing anything to protect yourselves. That was one of the easiest possible flows to divert. Most of the lava fronts moved at a crawl, you had warning long in advance of the eruption and a very slow eruptive rampup (didn't really take off until June), and you had a steep slope to the south into unpopulated areas you could have easily diverted it down. Losing all that was a choice.

"Oh, we can't!" is just an excuse for your fatalism that gives you an excuse to not put forth the effort to actually do it. It's not the 1940s anymore, we're not chucking surplus WWII bombs at lava tubes anymore. Lava diversion is a science and is routinely effectively done. There are limits, but you were nowhere near said limits for sites far from the vents. There are costs, but they are nowhere near the costs that you paid by refusing to act.

I take native Hawaiian religious objections seriously. These are people who take a fatalistic "Pele will take what she wants, it's pointless to try to stop her" attitude toward lava flows running over their houses that seems utterly insane here in Iceland. We'll buy up every available water pump on the international market and walk on active-flowing lava fields to save a harbour for a couple thousand people. We'll keep running tourist sites right next to a volcano that erupts every couple months by building multi-story-high berms around it with giant bulldozers and cooling anything that tries to overtop to make the berms even higher. And it totally works . But Hawaiians will sit back and watch incredibly slow-flowing flows with easy diversion paths take out everything they hold dear. At best they'll point to some primitive failed attempts in like the 1940s as a reason to not try, but then when pressed, it often comes back to: "Pele will take what she wants to take."

Another example: geothermal drilling on the Big Island. Massive protests. Massive resistance, way beyond the token NIMBY resistance here. Meanwhile Hawaii continues to generate most of its electricity from oil, at great cost. Hawaii is the only other place (outside of Iceland) to have accidentally drilled into a magma chamber. In Hawaii they treated it as a major incident and immediately shut down the well. When we did it? Our reaction was, "WOW, we can produce REALLY hot steam from THIS well!", made it into a production well, and started planning to drill more.

I guess one major difference here is that in the early Icelandic cosmology, volcanoes weren't the product of a high-ranking creator goddess, but rather, Surtr, who was practically a demon and was fated to destroy the world. It's good to resist Surtr!

Except his complaint is not.

Yes, it literally was. The main public complaint of the weavers was that they spent their entire life learning their art, and then their bosses come in with a machine that they teach to replicate the patterns that they developed, churn out cheap "slop" versions of them, and fire them.

And here we're talking about profits, despite their huge scaleup expenditure. Theirs and OpenAI's margins on serving inference are ~40%.

It's almost impossible for a company undergoing a massive scaleup rate to turn a profit, let alone growing 10X annualized for 3 1/2 years running, but Anthropic pulled it off.

a) and yet, nobody pays for anything in these situations, usually. Healthcare picks it up. The price is inflated specifically because of socialized services: what's about $10k in operational cost ends up with a bill for $50k because of collusion in the subsidized healthcare environment.
b) and? We need people to fail to be guidestones for the others.
c) then the fee would be significantly higher.
c1) "normal countries" do not have parks like in America.
c2) no, they are not.

These kids compounded stupid decisions. Instead of sitting and waiting and giving their water to someone else to go get help, they went ahead recklessly. It's also an exceptional situation. You don't design your entire system around the exception.