The incentive structure that they're using makes it much more likely that a good regulation will be kept than a bad one; this isn't a blanket destruction of all regulation, rather a review process that requires agencies to periodically affirm that a regulation is still having positive impact.
Or that it is aligned with the current executive’s philosophy. This is pretty likely to create regulatory instability, but the article (as much of it that I could read) didn’t address that.
Honestly this reads like a paid post for a candidate, quoting a TV show and following it with a candidate endorsement is either astroturf or a good indication that you should think a bit.
Management has been so bad that Firefox is hard to recommend now. Servo is a great engine but the company behind it isn't earning support and I think it's not going to last. I'll keep using Firefox forks until they don't work, but I won't support Mozilla by using their product directly anymore.
Speed (or more accurately, length) is a part of pronunciation. English speakers don't often think about vowel length because it has no semantic significance like in some other languages, but there's still some phonemic variation, depending on one's dialect.
It's true, it just used to be behind the scenes available to those who seek it out. Like that skeezy room at the back of the video store that had curtains blocking it off.
IMO the real "problem" here isn't technological, political, or corporate - it's just a slide of social norms toward hyper-permissibility of immodest or bad behavior. The resolution will likely be social as well, and people realizing that kids are getting exposed to smut will likely hasten that. Laws might get passed, corporations might change their policies, but only after the pendulum swings back socially.
You'll find very few people who don't want poor people to have things and it's disingenuous to put it that way.
The two commonly held arguments against socialized healthcare in America are:
First, a distrust that the government will create a system that is good and a belief that quality will decrease under such a system, and;
Second, that such a system would be funded by a large tax increase and that Americans are in general hard to get excited about tax increases. The financial concern is in the taking, not in the getting.
> You'll find very few people who don't want poor people to have things and it's disingenuous to put it that way.
I'm afraid your experiences are not universal.
There is a very strong streak of this in the US, significantly (though probably not wholly) traceable to the Calvinist roots of the Puritans who were a profound influence on the early culture of the country. When you believe that people's position on Earth is due to their level of deserving (Just World Fallacy), it's very easy to extend that to "and therefore we shouldn't try to help poor people; they're just being punished for being bad people."
You're right about the first part, but I'm not confused about anything.
There are genuinely many people who wholeheartedly believe that the poor deserve to be poor, and that helping them is bad. Some of them aren't even that well off themselves, but have bought into an ideology that's detrimental to them.
If you haven't encountered these people, then count yourself lucky, but don't try to deny their existence or assume your own experiences are universal.
Clearly people of every ilk exist, but my claim is that people like this are irrelevant to the debate around socialized healthcare. Show me an American politician who's run on the platform of openly wanting to hurt the poor because they deserve to be hurt, their electoral victory, and that person's vote against a socialized healthcare initiative. It's not a thing.
Regan's "welfare queen" comes to mind. More recent examples were those against stimulus checks (but very much for PPP "loans"). Any politician who believes in means-testing, when the bureaucracy adds an overhead greater than the amount saved is arguably out to hurt the undeserving.
You can't deny the politics of retribution exists, because politicians only give oblique references to it; voters certainly believe it, hence one voter who complained about Covid shutdowns thusly: "He's not hurting the people he needs to be"
One shouldn’t conclude that regulations lead to positive outcomes from this. In addition to having a disdain for regulation, OceanGate was doing bad engineering. Projects that follow regulation strictly can fail due to bad engineering too.
> Projects that follow regulation strictly can fail due to bad engineering too.
Which in the world of regulated engineering disciplines usually translates to new regulations to prevent the newly discovered failure modes. The point of regulation isn't to eliminate 100% of bad engineering, it's to rigorously define and enforce the current standard of good engineering so that the vast majority of cases don't fail.
- A google engineer says "google has AGI"... this leaks and is dismissed.
- MS writes a paper that says GPT has hints of AGI.
- OpenAI signs deal with MS saying they can have everything OpenAI does till they hit AGI.
That last one. Thats not a bet you make if you think AGI is a decade away. Its a bet you make if you think your close.
OpenAI thought that they were close. They fell for the classic AI trap of "if only we had a bigger model". They got high on their own supply and thought that some sort of tipping point would come with size or scale. That a bigger model with MORE data and MORE information would have AGI, sapience or sentience emerge.
It was a bad bet. Q* isnt going to get there, the LLM line is dead.
Why do you need to worry about safety or super alignment if you arent going to get to AGI. They left because there is no THERE, there..
If your safety oriented, and your company is close to AGI you stay regardless. Your boss isnt going to push you out because you leave and scream "it will kill us all"... All the safety people have been doing that for years, now they are quite.
If you aren't close, or realize "we're never getting there" leaving, vesting makes sense. There's NO existential risk.
