One of the worst things is he didn't just go to prison for anything (drugs, robbery, assault), but as a reviled 'chester'. Those guys are isolated and hated by the rest of the prison population, and the first to get attacked, harassed, and abused themselves. Often times they are put in special isolation to protect them, but just as often, they are not. This wasn't a "regular" prison visit for this guy.

As Germany was becoming a healthier democracy, the idea I would imagine was that the censorship laws they put on record would become no longer necessary. They would evolve beyond them and could repeal them, as their free discourse became capable of tolerating extreme viewpoints and yes even hateful speech, without threatening democracy. Instead they are still on the books ~80 years later, and prosecutors willingly use them to haze private citizens. It shows that free speech regulation is very very hard to reverse once it passes. Even in a western democratic country.

Social media is addictive, and part of growing up to be an adult is to learn how to avoid addictions. Either the addictive power of social media is so strong even adults of sound mind cannot resist (e.g., heroin) or its a skill everyone must learn. How are children supposed to learn it if they are coddled by laws that outright ban it? At the same time banning drugs to protect kids is one thing, but banning speech? That is very novel and new territory. I read the Anxious Generation, and it is very compelling, but I also have kids, and you cannot raise kids that grow up to be healthy adults by relying on nameless government agencies to create a reality distortion field, that actually sets them up for failure. Just like with avoiding ice cream, not getting enough exercise, or watching too much Netflix (also disastrous for health but not being banned...) getting sucked into a social media self-validation loop needs to be taught, not banned.

I would think the risk of a title continuing to propagate on secondary/"black" markets even after the studio is able to have SONY stop distributing it is fairly expensive, and for DRM-less media that cannot be remotely revoked, is built into the cost passed down to the consumer. Whereas media which can be revoked has a conversely lower up front cost to the consumer as well. Or maybe SONY is just greedy and pockets the savings as extra margin without passing it onto the consumer.

Without a doubt, restricting the target audience a local broadcaster can reach to 39% is a form of censorship, no matter the reasoning behind it. In the past the FCC had to balance censorship with censorship, and the cap did that by preventing a broadcaster who refused to air a show from affecting more than 39% of the national audience. Now that programs from major studios can reach 100% of the national audience via online streaming services, this balance is now out of whack. If it is not addressed, local broadcasters will be regulated out of existence by forcing them to compete with one hand tied behind their back.

Thanks, this is an interesting point, and I would like to provide a different perspective. I just interviewed a candidate with a glowing resume, including a UC Berkeley degree, but during the course of my interview, as well as their others, we all agreed the candidate did not know how to decompose and solve hard problems. A key skill they would have learned during their time at UC Berkeley if they studied well. They have the degree, but clearly not the education, and they are not going to get the job. So, employers do not just hand out jobs to people with degrees, they check first, and so those people actually have to know something. So, universities offer instruction in exchange for money, not jobs, they cannot offer jobs. So, there is no real tension or crisis.

Thanks for the insightful relation to TV. To build on your relation, I grew up with my parents watching TV every night, we even ate dinner in front of the TV, and that's how I saw most episodes of Star Trek Next Generation. However, while not a statistical comparison mind you, anecdotally, I noticed that my friends who grew up in families that set aside time to eat dinner at the table, and limited TV time, both for us, and themselves, and spent more time going out of the house and doing activities with their kids, generally those kids were better adjusted and more successful in life. So your comparison is spot on, and I think it predicts the same outcome...

I actually recognize and have come to like COOFANDY over the years. Assuming late-comers who couldn't get more reasonable names are all merely knock offs who only ever plan to win on smaller margins is presumptuous, and a little sad.

Doom was amazing tech, way ahead of its time, and while it changed hands, and staffing, since then, the quality of their engine and team was always a high standard. Seeing it gutted to claw back money to spend elsewhere makes me feel that AI is taking away from, rather than adding, to the awesomeness that was hacking crazy irreverent new games and software. If AI is so powerful an amplifier, then why can't some of the most creative and hard working content creating teams be empowered and amplified by it? It seems that computing revolutions in the past were additive, PC, internet, mobile, cloud, but now AI is one of the most destructive I have ever seen.

The subtext is that nobody, including national cyber security experts, have any idea what's going to happen a year from now. These staging programs reek of "we have no idea what we're doing" and is literally "please just slow down until we figure it out" ...but it's not going to.

Anthropic suggests creating a massive demand for Chinese home-grown CPU and GPU development, and preventing American chip companies from selling and catering to it, in order to prevent China from catching up to US AI tech company level capabilities. That sounds like it will never backfire...

100% right. These news outlets have their own markets they cater to. They aren't "trusted" by those that choose not to watch them, or ground their reporting against other sources and channels, so giving them preferential treatment is 100% censorship and should be utterly disgusting and reprehensible to any free democracy. Similarly, it should be completely rejected by all Slashdotters. The top comment which is equivocating and apologizing may be well intentioned, but when it comes to defending freedom of speech, you can't give one single inch to the vested interested, they will _never_ give it back.

Anthropic is making the argument that the ratio of human to useful code committed is decreasing rapidly over time, while anthropic continues to meet milestones and beat competitors and ship product: real world indicators that prevent their engineers from committing broken slop code, which means the human-to-code ratio is a real improvement, and looked at on the whole, does irrefutably offer evidence of a feedback loop system where the AI is self-improving, but slowly draining humans from its learn-improve feedback loop, while still meeting/exceeding all objecting real world metrics for successful improvement. It's a thoughtful way of framing self improvement, and yeah partly marketing hype, but also not wrong. It can be an observation that makes them look good, and be correct, two things can be true.

Good for you. Try out new stuff, and be open minded to new possibilities, and have fun along the way. That's the best way to go about all this business right now.

The NSF/administration said they made a list of high priority high impact oceanic research they want to fund, and the sensors didn't make the cut. The admin gave the entire oceanic observatory program a steep budget reduction, to allocate remaining funds to other more important initiatives, and this was how that group decided to meet the new requirement: https://www.newsweek.com/ocean... Since it is financially motivated, removing the sensors is likely simply cheaper than leaving them in place derelict, which in turn is likely cheaper than continuing to run them.