Comment Re: Tablets in restaurants safe or not? (Score 1) 55
If you put the trade-off that way you make extinction sound particularly compelling.
Comment Re:Welcome to the dictatorship! (Score 1) 268
Didn't you guys have a 'no kings' movement?
What is the point of a government if one man can rule 300 million people by executive decree?
Wha....
Our King hasn't even been able to do that since before 1649 (ironically, the last time we had a Chaz in charge).
Comment Re:Double standard? (Score 5, Insightful) 118
Ooh, you are going to love 'qualified immunity'. Invented more or less out of whole cloth to protect our brave boys in blue from the terrors of the (checks notes) civil rights movement.
Comment Oh, they picked a juicy one... (Score 1) 118
This guy sounds like an unsympathetic defendant; but "allowed the evidence to be used because the officer who applied for the warrant reasonably believed he was acting properly." is basically a "your rights are whatever the dumbest cop you know has an incentive to guess they are based on convenience and a half-remembered training powerpoint that needn't be correct" standard of evidence; which requires little imagination to see going dubious places fast. Along with some third party doctrine, for flavor.
Comment How impolite... (Score 3, Funny) 23
You'd think a company in the adtech business would be more...polite...about what are basically just banner ads for bots.
Comment Constrained size. (Score 1) 61
There are obviously other reasons why some people want unix or unix-like OSes; and some environments where the benefits can show up on fairly constrained hardware; but it can't have helped that the matchup was against microcomputer OSes on what were still very micro-computers.
A lot of the compromises that put microcomputer OSes on the 'how about you get a real computer?' list just don't hit as hard on very small systems. Oh boy; the multitasking is nonexistent or one of the nasty kludges like TSR or 'cooperative'. And there's no user separation or meaningful filesystem permissions. And the lack of memory protection means anything that goes bad can take the whole system down in a screaming heap. Well. I guess all of those things would be really bad if I could afford enough RAM to actually run multiple programs at once pleasantly. Or if the bulk of the system's state weren't stored on a removable disk whose permissions become irrelevant if you move it to a different system. Or I could afford enough networking hardware for any of this to be dangerous.
In specific environments all that and more would have been true and relevant by 1984; and it's notable how long the microcomputer OSes continued paying for their compromises (ignoring the ones that died; it basically took both MS and Apple 15 years to bolt their respective options onto a real operating system, longer for the result to become the default; and at this rate Windows seems closer to being on track to just ignoring both in favor of 'web' auth flavors than it does to finally shaking all the weird crevices where things depend on NTLM); but in 1984 you could more or less fit an application you might want to use or an OS that didn't suck at it's job onto a computer you could afford; but much less frequently both at the same time.
A lot of the compromises that put microcomputer OSes on the 'how about you get a real computer?' list just don't hit as hard on very small systems. Oh boy; the multitasking is nonexistent or one of the nasty kludges like TSR or 'cooperative'. And there's no user separation or meaningful filesystem permissions. And the lack of memory protection means anything that goes bad can take the whole system down in a screaming heap. Well. I guess all of those things would be really bad if I could afford enough RAM to actually run multiple programs at once pleasantly. Or if the bulk of the system's state weren't stored on a removable disk whose permissions become irrelevant if you move it to a different system. Or I could afford enough networking hardware for any of this to be dangerous.
In specific environments all that and more would have been true and relevant by 1984; and it's notable how long the microcomputer OSes continued paying for their compromises (ignoring the ones that died; it basically took both MS and Apple 15 years to bolt their respective options onto a real operating system, longer for the result to become the default; and at this rate Windows seems closer to being on track to just ignoring both in favor of 'web' auth flavors than it does to finally shaking all the weird crevices where things depend on NTLM); but in 1984 you could more or less fit an application you might want to use or an OS that didn't suck at it's job onto a computer you could afford; but much less frequently both at the same time.
Comment Seems ill thought out. (Score 5, Insightful) 58
Obviously we aren't expecting a merit hire from the current administration; but this seems like a weird move even by their low standards of thuggish demands for compliance and sniveling loyalists. Hegseth is having a tantrum over anthropic allegedly getting in the way of the DoD fulfiling his fantasies of masculine adequacy; so you fire the guy who left anthropic to work for you?
Isn't the whole point of treating any differences of opinion as personal insults to be dealt with regardless of their legality, while coddling loyalists regardless of their actions, to encourage people to obey you rather than others? Especially if this guy wasn't in a position to personally change Anthropic's contract with the DoD what lesson are you conveying by punishing him anyway? "We might just fuck you over because we don't like your old boss" seems like an actively counterproductive line because it essentially tells a nontrivial number of people that compliance isn't worth it because they'll be punished anyway; rather than encouraging them to turn on whoever your enemies are in order to be rewarded.
Isn't the whole point of treating any differences of opinion as personal insults to be dealt with regardless of their legality, while coddling loyalists regardless of their actions, to encourage people to obey you rather than others? Especially if this guy wasn't in a position to personally change Anthropic's contract with the DoD what lesson are you conveying by punishing him anyway? "We might just fuck you over because we don't like your old boss" seems like an actively counterproductive line because it essentially tells a nontrivial number of people that compliance isn't worth it because they'll be punished anyway; rather than encouraging them to turn on whoever your enemies are in order to be rewarded.
Comment Re:Someone got into crypto not understanding -- sh (Score 1) 106
I suspect it's more hubris than outright stupidity: he's capricious; but Trump sometimes permits others to feast on the little people as well, when it suits him. I suspect that our gentleman here had no expectation that the dealings would be honest; but was hoping that they would be partners in crime against people who don't matter.
It will be morbidly interesting to see how his 'attempt to seek justice through the courts against someone whose lawlessness he has bene abetting' plan will work out for him.
It will be morbidly interesting to see how his 'attempt to seek justice through the courts against someone whose lawlessness he has bene abetting' plan will work out for him.
Comment Re:This needs to die. (Score 1) 41
"applying the ban only to the use of personal data to set higher prices without establishing a baseline or standard price".
So you set very high baseline prices, then use personal data to offer varying discounts. That does look like a loophole.
How about "No dynamic prices or discounts based on personal or biometric data are allowed"? Put in an exemption to offer a discount to certain classes (student or vet discounts, discounts for seniors)
In the past dynamic prices (discounts) were used to increase turnover: get new customers in the door with offers, keep them coming back with loyalty programs, and have them buy more with volume discounts. Now, it is used to extract the maximum amount of cash from every customer. It seems that the MBAs who came up with this have fully embraced the first tenet of communism: from each according to their ability.
"How much is this item?"
- "How much do you have?"
A simple answer is, prices must not be changed during opening hours. This is basically how most countries regulate their petrol stations. A price is set at the start of the day and may not legally be altered until the following day (otherwise we'd have them changing the price depending on how many people are queuing up).
Comment Re:subscription model wont die (Score 1) 21
Even on Xbox you can still buy the games. You only need the subscription if you want to play online, but you can buy the lowest tier service without all the games.
You don't need a subscription as every game offered is still available for purchase separately.
Or rather rent, since digital purchases are not quite purchases, just a long term rental.
Any subscription is too much, I'll continue to play on platforms that don't charge you money for basic functionality.
Comment Re:I'm not buying it (Score 1, Insightful) 103
I remember when Columbine happened. I also remembered when the Federal building in Oklahoma got blown up. Guess what WAS'T around back then? That's right: OpenAI wasn't a thing. But those events still happened.
Blaming a chatbot for a tragedy is like blaming McDonald's for your obesity: even if the restaurant didn't exist, you were going to end up in that condition because of your eating habits anyhow. The name of the restaurant might have changed but the song remains the same.
This guy had it in his head to shoot up the school, OpenAI or no OpenAI. Rounds were going to fly downrange even if AI didn't exist. This is some lazy logic.
This is just the only country in the world where this kind of thing happens refusing to admit why this kind of thing happens and trying to find any reason except the obvious to explain why this kind of thing happens.
The old excuse of "video games and rock and/or roll music" just ain't cutting it no more.
So they're back to trying to find any scape goat they can to avoid admitting the US has too many guns and an unhealthy love of violence.
Comment Re:More Heinlein than Bond (Score 1) 141
>> "National service should be a universal duty"
In other words: "Service guarantees citizenship"
Unfortunately in this case it's less about earning rights and more "give the rich overlords a steady supply of cannon fodder". The kids of CEOs will be exempt from service one can expect.
Comment Oh boy! (Score 1) 84
I suspect that he's neither the first nor the last who are genuinely quite eager to see more 'equity participation' in some of the big bot shops; given that they've burned through all the VC they can get and even the dumb money is starting to get nervous. Retail bagholders and state investment under the guise of benevolence would be just the thing.
What is much less clear is whether the same amount of interest will be present once current investors take enough of a haircut that the remainder is actually worth something, or one or more of them actually start turning a profit.
What is much less clear is whether the same amount of interest will be present once current investors take enough of a haircut that the remainder is actually worth something, or one or more of them actually start turning a profit.
Comment Re:So (Score 1) 127
Next: the US annexes the Philippines, again.
Third invasion's the charm.
Comment Re:Sadly (Score 1) 127
BBC tends to be unbaised when they report on American news because they don't care about D and R.
When the BBC reports on British news, they are biased. (But compared to comedians they are extremely good).
Erm... just exactly which side is the BBC biased against?
The right will tell you the BBC has a leftist bias whist the left will tell you the BBC is biased towards the right.
They can't both be correct.
Slashdot Top Deals
You have mail.
