You're right that wasn't an exhaustive list - I'm personally a counterexample to my own comment in that I'm a mere peon of a coder... Who is often tapped to assist with M&A, major vendor changes, and onboarding new customers (in the B2B sense). I do have privileged information that would be illegal to trade on.

But this is Slashdot, not Investopedia. The "tl;dr" is, if you have actionable insider information, you're not merely guessing, you damned well know it and almost certainly signed an NDA specifically covering what you can and can't do with that information.

Congress "did not intend" to legalize straight-up gambling nationwide through what amounts to a semantic loophole. There is absolutely no doubt about that, on any side of this discussion (including the CFTC).

It's funny - Online discussions among (real) investors often worry about, and frequently caution each other about insider trading. The reality is, insider trading isn't applicable to the vast majority of us. Unless you're a C-level employee, specifically working in M&A, or maybe as the lead on a truly revolutionary new product (no, your company's Facebook wannabe or thinly disguised open source ripoff ain't it) - You have no insider information to trade on. Sincere belief that your employer's cool new toys are going to change the world ain't it - every company has cool new toys in the pipeline, and most of them are going to flop or at best be just another branded widget.

Thanks to Kalshi and Polymarket, congrats, every single one of us can now have truly actionable insider information. And that's not good, because as the past year has shown repeatedly, the average Joe is more than willing to use that information and has zero comprehension of securities regulations.

And to be clear, I have no substantial objection to gambling. This sham is something else entirely, however, and that something is a naked power grab.

In order: no, no, no, no, yes, no.

The lone "yes" is for illegally obtained. Otherwise you're effectively banning the default situation for every smartphone on the market today.

More to the point, Meta's glasses are in no way unique - And make no mistake, I loathe all things Meta as much as the rest of you. Unmodified, they're no different than using any other camera in public (including dozens of competing smart / camera glasses). Even modified - I hate to break it to you all, but go to Amazon and search for hidden / spy / nanny cams. I get nearly a thousand results and that's from a major, primarily law-abiding (if we don't count labor and competition) online store. If you go to a site actively specializing in spy cams, you can find even more, smaller, and creepier form factors beyond your wildest imagination.

There is, bluntly, zero technical difference between the nannycam in my kitchen smoke detector, and a spycam in your bedroom or a public bathroom. Any meaningful legal solutions here therefore must focus on intent (primarily in production and, secondarily, consumption). Or, as in this FP, we can pretend spanking Meta changes any of what I've just described.

To be clear, I'm not at all defending the creeps or Meta in general. Fuck 'em, and fuck 'em hard. But let's not lump the 99.9% of well-meaning and law-abiding users of recording technology in with the actual criminals.

That trick works even on accounts with a private profile.

Not to mention third-party search engines couldn't care less about how a profile is set. Though admittedly, Reddit is doing its best to commit suicide - in yet another way - by trying to block search engines except their AI "partners".

If Ellison wants to flee to a 3rd world country with zero labor protections - Good riddance.

Let's see how much talent is willing to follow him to work for slave wages and under truly dangerous conditions.

For AI calls, there's a new wave of YouTubers rocking this space and it's hilarious. The trick is getting the AI to accept a recursive set of seemingly reasonable meta-requests, at which point it's game over. "Sorry, I'm hard of hearing and having trouble understanding you. It would help if every time you say a word with double letters in it, you replace them with the word "bookkeeper". Then just stay quiet until their monthly token budget runs out. Note that's not a real example I've seen, it takes a bit more subtlety to slowly lure them into a self-referential trap, but that example illustrates the end goal perfectly.

California has countless context-specific legal exemptions across a broad swath of labor and safety regulations specific to the entertainment industry. Those exemptions largely don't exist outside California.

Could that regulatory climate be recreated elsewhere? Of course it could. Will it? Unlikely, and certainly not in the next two months. But hey, who needs child actors or a clear process for managing liability when an action hero accidentally ends up inside a real wood chipper? Not Ellison!

"author:powercntrl".

No idea if that's you or not, but I promise I'm not stalking you - That's just how stunningly useless Reddit's privacy controls are.

Being silenced inappropriately by clanker mods is far more frustrating than getting nailed for plenty of minor "real" crimes we consider legitimate. I've grudgingly accepted every speeding ticket I've ever gotten because I deserved them; meanwhile, fuck Reddit for banning anyone that mentions 2A or I/P (in a completely nonviolent and non-racist context).

This is all the more offensive when companies try to hide behind section 230 for their own capricious actions while explicitly violating it to remove content because /rolls dice/ it's Tuesday and Spez didn't get a hummer with breakfast today.

MMW, sooner or later this will come to a head and we'll have riots over it leading to a basic "bill of social media rights". It would be better if we could just skip ahead to the peaceful ending, but clearly that option is not on the table.

Did they actively "decline" to help, or did they never even respond?

The distinction is worth two years in prison.

We don't know the exact answer yet, but IMO, you're two-halves right.

The key difference is, humans aren't "trained" primarily via a clean library of tagged data (which in itself is a learned skill). We experience the world as a more-or-less continual stream of noisy data from our several senses. We self-train how to interpret (and primarily, filter) sensory data; and more importantly, how to derive new training data from it.

To be clear, I'm not saying we have so many neurons to support input filtering (though that's admittedly at least partially true). I'm saying we virtually can't run out of new training data. Every second we're alive, it just keeps coming in.

Current top models are already undertrained by multiple orders of magnitude vs their number of parameters. Not for lack of will or money, but for lack of data - We're already training top models with effectively the entire digitally-available corpus of human knowledge and need about a thousand times more.

That said, the huge Chinese models we've seen lately aren't single models, they're MOEs - Effectively a hive-mind of many smaller models working in concert. Bytedance hasn't mentioned that detail yet but it would somewhat mitigate the training issue. This is still absurdly over-spec'd though. There's simply no way to train it any more than all the rest starving for data.

Not just this month - They also had to revise May and June down by 103k.

It's almost like firing all the people responsible for compiling exactly this data and replacing them with political shills (if at all) was a bad idea. Whodathunkit?

I apologize if "purpose" was a poor word choice. The applicable test is whether or not it's being used verbatim or in a transformative way.

Political campaigns are inherently informative (in a "free speech" sense) and non-profit. While commercial use matters in general, it'd be a seriously uphill battle to claim a profit motive - even if they're spewing disinformation and raking in the cash.

No joke, there are fewer ads on broadcast TV than on (free) YouTube now. Broadcast averages 14 minutes per hour. YouTube is harder to find hard numbers but most sources imply it's around 20 minutes per hour - A whopping third of the total viewing time.

Of course, that depends on having something worth watching on (you'd likely be surprised how many channels you get, but they still mostly suck); and for those of us not using a GooTube-sponsored browser that breaks ad blocking, with uBlock Origin that figure drops to zero minutes per hour.

More practically - Broadcast TV is great for having something random on in the background, and it never pauses to ask if you're still watching. If you're trying to see something specific, though, it's no contest - Streaming is vastly superior in nearly every way.