It's more a case of the fox being in charge of the chicken coop; or bank robbers gaining control of the bank.

The job of the press in a democracy is to hold officials up to scrutiny.

The logic is economic autarky -- the belief that we're always better off having complete political sovereignty over every part of our supply chains than having to depend on imports for anything.

This is likely also behind Trump's trade war with Canada. His demands with Canada aren't about discirimatory tariffs -- those were negotiated away with NAFTA then re-negotiated in his first term. His demands are now infringe on Canadian sovereignty, to give US control of Canada's external trade policy, and even on its internal markets (e.g., the use of French in Canadian internal commerce). Symbolically, that's why he wants to rename Lake Ontario to "Lake America". HIs establishment of US control over the Venezuelan oil industry is his greatest foreign policy achievement -- although it's not clear he understands the legal limits on what he can do with their money.

There's a foreign and military policy angle to this too: Taiwan is absolutely critical to the US economy, so we are absolutely committed to defend them if China invades. Semiconductor autarky would mean it's not our problem.

The problem with autarky is that even if it's a good idea (which economists don't believe), you can't conjure it into existence overnight. It will take many years, possibly decades for the US to replace the Taiwan's semiconductor industry. In effect, the administration is proposing to inflict the very damage on the US economy that a Chinese invasion of Taiwan would inflict.

And, once the US has voluntarily self-inflicted that damage, China would be free to invade Taiwan.

That last one really chaps my hide. Those mountains of fake drama posts punctuated by the 'negative parallelism' structure (now I have a name for the thing I hate.) It's everywhere and it's infuriating.

All you can do is try to ignore it and focus on your own (AI-free) stuff. Of course anything you post online will then become free AI fodder. It's hard to get away from it.

Yes it makes use of the thumbwheels, but that's missing the point. You have to go to the touch screen first before being able to do ANY of that. Sure, it's fine once you're in that mode for the scrollwheels, but getting there is completely obnoxious when you're also trying to drive.

Go to the screen...menu -> controls -> mirror icon. Adjust one. Fumble with screen to select the other mirror, adjust.

On my Mazda3 and every other car I've owned it's a selector switch and a joystick on the door. Very intuitive and within easy reach without ever looking at it. They've been that way since the 80s when power mirrors came to the masses. My '85 Celica had the same setup.

AC? If it's not in the little controls in the bottom corner you have to flip-up the larger control screen, and do weird pinchy things with your fingers to adjust the vents, looking at the screen while driving. Fumble for the fan speed at the bottom of the screen. Try to slide around to adjust the temperature at the bottom of the screen.

Compare to conventional car with knobs where you can take one glance at where your hand is going and do it by feel.

There are reasons why certain things are the way they are. It's because a company spent a LOT of time doing ergonomic studies and trials. I hate it when people throw out all that work in lieu of something else just because it's different, without a lot of thought and study first. It's putting the cart before the horse.

"OK, what would you do if you couldn't have any buttons, how could you make it suck less?" I feel they're working backwards from 'terrible' to 'only mostly terrible'. Not much of an improvement.

She wanted it, and she actually likes it. I found it ridiculous when I drove it, but she likes all the creature comforts. More power to her, I just avoid it. I think I'm a more of a driver-centric experience sort of person. She likes all the bling and frilly features and does not drive as much as I do.

Everything in this space lately has been a huge turnoff. Modern cars were never so physically capable, safe, and smooth handling, and yet they are absolute garbage in the human interface department. Giant touchscreens and gadgets are the equivalent of chrome and giant tailfins gone amok in the 1950s.

Quite happy with my 2016-era Mazda with a basic infotainment setup, bluetooth to my phone which has everything I need. My truck that I use to haul things occasionally is 26 years old. I have a bluetooth to cassette adapter in that one (a lawful-evil wedding of technology) and yet it works fine.

The wife has a Tesla, and while it has an amazing powertrain, it is just so aggravating to interface with in so many ways. No buttons for the mirrors. No buttons for the wiper. (there's one button on the end of a stalk to activate the wiper+spray automatic thing) If you leave the auto-wiper on it randomly activates and smears the windshield in the driest of weather. The door handles are terrible. The lack of any kind of physical controls for climate and entertainment is terrible. It is super distracting to try to do anything while driving. It calls home to mother and reports on everything you're doing. The auto dimming mirror, like all auto-dimming mirrors, doesn't dim enough nor when you want it to. The adaptive cruise control constantly slams on the brakes on highways with grade level intersections or if you're coming up on a hump on a road that hasn't been graded flat. The insurance is sky high. The tires wear out quickly due to the weight, and are very expensive. Anything saved in gas is made up for in those other things.

You can see where they had all these ideas and just didn't think them through. Whereas traditional auto manufacturers understand a lot of these things and even on their electric offerings still have plenty of physical buttons and not-ridiculous interface peculiarities. I got a ride in a friend's Hyundai Ioniq5 a little ago and it was great. Felt like a regular car with lots of buttons. But they are priced as such that any savings in gas is made up for in the overall cost of ownership of the car. So you're not doing it for that, you're doing it just to have the other features of an electric car or feel better about yourself. I don't feel it's worth it for that. My cars are paid for and the daily driver is absurdly cheap to fuel and maintain, so I'll stick with it until some sanity returns to the modern car market. (unlikely...)

More like "If any little disruption happens in the Middle East for any petty reason over the next several decades regardless of who the President of the USA is".

But hey, if you want to give Trump the credit for pushing the world away from burning Middle East oil and releasing all that carbon into the atmosphere then go right ahead. I'm sure he'd bask in the attention.

Since invariably, you still need to carry a physical ID for the most serious of applications, according to the article, it's completely pointless.

Well, it isn't as simple as that, and I don't know how much power either party has on the matter. It would take legislation at the state level to really block it state-wide, and there are probably too many other things that would be affected for them to blanket ban something like this. Of course legislation wouldn't say "Flock cameras are not allowed". It would have to ban ALPR in general, and then you get into things with private property and so on. If I have a business and a security camera sees the street in front of it, how can I not be allowed to record it or do whatever I want with the images I collect? That street is a public space, and there are myriad laws and court cases allowing that to be photographed or otherwise recorded.

Also, any commercial entity can order flock cameras. Lowes (a huge home improvement chain the USA) has them at all their locations if the state laws allow. The one in our town as three of them in a cluster covering not only their parking lot, but the streets beside it.

Our sheriff's department has a number of them throughout our town and county (maybe 5 or 6). I guess technically our sheriff can be voted out, but in actuality there isn't much competition running for that office in rural communities or people with the credentials to run for sheriff - they ten to hold office for a very long time, and have moved up through the local ranks. Pretty much everyone hates flock, but that is not nearly enough motivation to vote out a sheriff, and that is under the huge assumption someone would actually run using that as a platform (I will take down the 5 flock cameras in the county - vote for me!).

My point is that these things are paid for and placed across a very wide variety of locations and not just on public property.

Whether we like it or not, whether we use Windows or not, Microsoft is going to insist on adding the tax whether the PC comes shipped with Windows or not. This is illegal bundling, Microsoft has essentially ignored prior rulings, and it's pretty much a certainty the courts will be fine with this.

Investors are chasing a company that achieves some kind of AI singularity. Let's set aside the fact that there's no reason to believe there is anything but diminishing marginal returns by making marginal refinements to current frontier models. Let's imagine someone hits the jackpot and gets, not even AGI, but a system that's as far ahead of today's frontier model are ahead of 2020's GPT 2.0 in performance.

Globally AI revenues are 150 billion, against a cumulative burn rate of 450 billion. A model that is a generation ahead of others would almost certainly capture the lion's share of that revenue.

If AGI magically appears as a Sam Altman has promised investors it will, a hundred million is way too low. Add, maybe, another zero to the revenues.

Conservatively, a safer assumption is that frontier models will get marginally better based on refinements in training and reinforcement and the other bits and bobs that go into these systems. The nobody is winning the lion's share of anything, at least overnight. But you have to define "safe". By "safe" I mean unlikely to lose money. But some investors are clearly defining "safe" as "having the greatest chance of owning a piece of the biggest thing ever."

I'm not following this super-closely, but if Anthropic is pursuing adding multi-step model based reasoning to their system, that could be the basis of a generational leap in capability. But if that is an approach that looks like it has a chance of working, then their competitors are no doubt pursuing the same thing. In that case you'd expect the revenue pie to grow as the scope of model utilty increases, but that growth to be split among several competitors. This could credibly result in a revenue stream for some of them that is as big as the entire industry's revenue stream today. But there's going to be hell to pay on the data center impacts end of things.

"How did you get hired?"
"I was top at Fortnite. You?"
"Combat flight sims."

"Damn, two Boeings just crashed over an oil refinery on city limits and took out half the city."
"Did you remember to save your position beforehand?"
"Yeah."
"The reload and continue from there. No-one will notice."

I love computer games. I have XPlane 12 and many scenery packs. I rank well on Elite:Dangerous. From the sounds of it, the FAA would see me as over-qualified. In reality? There's no way in hell I'd be taking those kinds of risks with real lives. There's a huge difference between having good reflexes and a good eye, versus having the complex 4D spacetime relationship mental models needed for robust air traffic control.

So what do these things do if ingested by animals, like humans?

Freenet is also based on middle-out compression.

No. Trying to push 30TB into Freenet will be interpreted as an attack on the network by other peers and they'll disconnect from your peer.

Freenet is better viewed as a communication medium than a storage medium. Data is prioritized according to demand, somewhat like an LRU cache. You can't upload 30TB and expect the network to preserve it for you.

On liability, running a Freenet peer is more like running network infrastructure that automatically routes and caches other people's traffic than intentionally publishing it. US law explicitly recognizes this distinction in the DMCA's provisions for transitory network communications and system caching. We discuss this in more detail in the FAQ.