As I told you clearly, not changing the clock kills MORE people.

So fuck yourself.

If you had any critical thinking skills, you'd realize that my original point applies not only to keeling over, but also to feeling unwell.

More feeble people would suffer throughout the year with either permanent DST or standard time than the current one bad night in March. (Which, BTW, could be totally avoided by planning ahead and adjusting your bedtime a few minutes per day in the preceding week.)

Biology matches DST adjustments more than a fixed clock. Most everyone woke up with the sun from the dawn of humanity until the late 19th century, and adjusting the clock for the seasons stays closer to that.

Then I suggest you never travel east or west by more than a few miles. You seem feeble.

You know what's aligned even more with circadian biology?

Keep the current system, get up off your ass, and change your clocks twice per year without whinging like a precious snowflake.

That way you you don't have to deal either with the sun beating down on you while you try to sleep at 4am or with your poor children getting run over in the dark on their way to school.

Sure, a couple of codgers might keel over in march, but they were probably gonna die soon anyway. It's much harder to measure the statistics of all the other people who would die steadily throughout the year due to the aforementioned issues, as well as similar problems caused by a static clock that doesn't adjust at all to when the sun actually rises. However, I would bet good money that it would add up to far more casualties overall.

For some reason, I seem to be in a small minority on this issue, though. It's probably because everybody would rather believe in a solution to the problems of living on a tilted axis that's clear, simple, and wrong.

People don't read a lot of things that they agree to, especially if it's 20,000 words in a postage stamp-sized text box on the new toy they just turned on. However, anybody who's not an idiot realizes that most everything in an agreement that they haven't read is against their interests, and plans accordingly. I personally always look for binding arbitration agreements and make sure to opt out of those whenever possible.

Oddly enough, the Anthropic TOS and privacy policy actually aren't all that obtuse and can be skimmed in a few minutes. They make it clear that they'll be looking for problems with what you upload and what kinds of problems those might be. Like I said, you can easily avoid all that by using a paper notebook for your diary.

If you look at Anthropic's terms of service and privacy policy, it clearly states that they can look at your content in order to enforce their usage policy. You have to agree to this when you set up an account or use their service. Given that this is an AI company, you can bet your content will be screened for violations more efficiently than if humans were involved at every step.

If she really didn't mean for anyone else to view it, she would have scribbled it down in a notebook instead of uploading into a cloud owned and policed by strangers and their robots.

I believe you misspelled "slower than molasses in February".

If they break into a car and the police look at the footage on the dashcam and see that they've kept their license plate out of view, but they are able to cross-correlate it with other cameras and figure out the plate number, then figure out where they drove that car, where it ended up parked, who got out, where they went, etc., then it can make arrests possible where it was not possible previously, making it *massively* more likely to be able to solve the crime.

The problem becomes when it turns into "show us all the plates that were near that spot within a few minutes of that time", and thus a fishing expedition.

The question was about sea level rise.

If the rising waters coincide with other climatic events, such as rainstorms and high tides, the phenomenon could swallow beaches, chew away bluffs and coastlines

There is a narrative that oh, a few cm of sea level rise is no problem, it's just a little higher water. It isn't.

However, the kinds of multi-million-dollar mansions that celebrities buy aren't the rickety perched-on-the-edge-of-a-crumbling bluff houses built in the 30s and 40s. They tend to be built-by-high-priced-architects homes that had civil engineers to advise about the stability of the foundation.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/entert...

If AI is ruled a serious risk that requires a government kill switch you won't be running any open weights models on hardware you control. I expect that's what the FSF is afraid of. That's why they refer to it as hypothetical technology as in "assuming such a kill switch was developed".

It might seem far fetched but consider that you are probably (based on the American readership of this site):

- not permitted to buy more than a few grams of effective cold medication per day and have to show ID, which goes in a tracking system, in order to do so.

- while you are allowed to purchase microcontrollers, if you install this on them they are illegal to possess

- possession or use of all manner of chemicals, combinations of chemicals and shaped metal considered dangerous will get you prosecuted with various degrees of zeal

The big AI companies, who already possess the most effective possible actual kill switches, seem oddly enthusiastic about the whole thing.

Not just downlink, but the inter-satellite bandwidth and latency is also likely to be a problem. I saw an analysis of what it would take to build a big datacentre, and there the cooling really does become a problem. Not the radiators so much as the plumbing to move the heat around. So everyone is talking about lots of little satellites, but that means you're restricted to a handful of cards locally. It's going to restrict the kinds of jobs you can do when the next rack over is a thousand kilometres away.

You're interpreting it in the context of typing "sudo" on the command-line granting a one-time permission. And the original statement from Apple (after correcting the "every -> very" error in the summary) makes it clear that this is *not* what is being proposed, so if that was the original poster's intent, then it was incorrect.

The way I interpreted the original sentence — "They're going to make it like sudo where when you give permission to a program to write protected files once it has it forever after" — is that they're going to make it like the sudoers file, where you edit it to grant permission to a program to do something, and it permanently has the right to do that... which is exactly what happens when you grant full disk permission, just with a dialog box instead of editing a file.

That said, I'm not sure if that's how the original statement was intended to be interpreted. It was a bit confusing. :-)

Nope. And this is why I object to the phrase "censorship is bad". *Unreasonable* censorship is bad. But not all restraint on speech is bad.

No, you're confusing the definition of censorship with what restraints on free speech are constitutional. You're defining the term based on legality in a specific jurisdiction. If you applied the same standard with a different jurisdiction — say what can legally be spoken in Iran — you would get a very different definition. This is why you cannot define censorship based on a specific legal standard. It must be defined in the abstract.

The general definition is that censorship is the suppression of expression by an authority. That expression could be a constitutionally protected idea, or it could be an advertisement for Taco Bell. It's still expression, and blocking it is still censorship.

And again, you're using the U.S. definition of free speech to define censorship. These things are not synonymous. Nobody is talking about whether someone should have to listen to you. The fact that someone shut you up is still censorship. It may be *constitutionally allowable* censorship. It may even be *entirely* *reasonable* censorship. But it is still censorship.

Not all censorship is bad. Restraints on speech based on time, place, and manner restrictions can be entirely reasonable. They are still, at least in a purely abstract way, a form of censorship. Restraints on speech where your speech costs someone else money can also be entirely reasonable (e.g. spam, robodialers, etc.). But those decisions still represent censorship in the abstract. We simply choose to say that those types of restraints on speech are reasonable and necessary for a functioning society.

It's all about balancing rights — your right to swing your fist ends when it meets my nose, and all that. Censorship is generally justifiable when exercising your right to speech has the effect of violating someone else's rights. For example, if you call for violence and that violence happens, you can get thrown in jail, and your rights to free speech can be massively curtailed. This is, however, still censorship in a purely abstract sense.

That's how it already works.

It's not. Full disk access is sticky. When you grant it, the app has it until you go into settings and revoke it. It's not like sudo, it's like running that app as root, with no permission required after the first time. On Linux to get the same effect you have to edit a text file with root permissions and give the program passwordless sudo privileges, which should make any competent Linux users' hair stand on end.

And the next step will be "See, we can't allow full disk access." And then macOS will cease to be usable.

People have been "predicting" this slippery slope thing for ages and it hasn't happened.