Heh, very true. It just messes up the first impression which is where the clothing jokes have the best impact. Never as fun if people take time to get to know you before getting the joke your appearance made.

The whole tactical-style-for-not-tactical-thing makes me rage. Not because it exists, but because it’s been picked up by the wrong demographic.

That sort of thing should belong to the realm of the ironic, and be worn by the person who has a bad joke to go with it.

Tactical baby carrier should be for the fun dad who uses it to make jokes about how you otherwise might notice the baby, and not the fragile guy who needs a shield to defend his masculinity in the face of raising his children.

It’s like so much of these things started as a gag, and then got picked up by people who aren’t in on the joke.

A lot of that information can be weirdly public. Looking up property records often comes with data about utility bills and taxes, and their payment statuses.

The RSV vaccine is even being used in the wild! Certain high risk demographics can get it during RSV season. And not rare high risk either, women beyond a certain point in pregnancy and older people.

Depends on the vendor for the specifics. In general, they don’t protect against an attacker who has gained persistent privileged access to the machine, only against theft.
Since the key either can’t leave the tpm or is useless without it (some tpms have one key that it can never return, and will generate a new key and return it encrypted with it’s internal key. This means you get protection but don’t need to worry about storage on the chip), the attacker needs to remain undetected on the server as long as they want to use it, which is difficult for anyone less sophisticated than an advanced persistent threat.

The Apple system, to its credit, does a degree of user and application validation to use the keys. Generally good for security, but it makes it so if you want to share a key between users you probably won’t be using the secure enclave.

Most of the trust checks end up being the tpm proving itself to the remote service that’s checking the service. For example, when you use your phones biometrics to log into a website, part of that handshake is the tpm on the phone proving that it’s made by a company to a spec validated by the standards to be secure in the way it’s claiming.

Package signing is used to make sure you only get packages from sources you trust.
Every Linux distro does it and it’s why if you add a new source for packages you get asked to accept a key signature.

For a long time, the keys used for signing were just files on disk, and you protected them by protecting the server they were on, but they were technically able to be stolen and used to sign malicious packages.

Some advanced in chip design and cost reductions later, we now have what is often called a “secure enclave”, “trusted platform module”, or a general provider for a non-exportable key.
It’s a little chip that holds or manages a cryptographic key such that it can’t (or is exceptionally difficult) to get the signing key off the chip or extract it, making it nearly impossible to steal the key without actually physically stealing the server, which is much easier to prevent by putting it in a room with doors, and impossible to do without detection, making a forged package vastly less likely.

There are services that exist that provide the infrastructure needed to do this, but they cost money and it takes time and money to build it into your system in a way that’s reliable and doesn’t lock you to a vendor if you ever need to switch for whatever reason.

So I believe this is valve picking up the bill to move archs package infrastructure security up to the top tier.
It was fine before, but that upgrade is expensive for a volunteer and donation based project and cheap for a high profile company that might legitimately be worried about their use of arch on physical hardware increasing the threat interest.

Most voters don’t have a business and never will.

The value of a net new business is that it creates more jobs and economic activity.
Most people benefit from more jobs to either work at or drive up labor demand.
Per that school of economic thought, incentivizing a new business adds more activity to the market and more opportunity for people to find ways to innovate, provide value and become profitable.
Giving money to an existing struggling business is subsidizing a businesses that’s already demonstrated that it’s not working.

However, we’re both putting too much into it. The goal is to say $50k for small business, because people like a business friendly atmosphere.
Trump gets credit for giving tax cuts to businesses for stock buyback, which only helps investors. The goal is to court people who want pro business policies without literal handouts to corporations.

Eeeh, I still think diving into the weeds of the technical is the wrong way to approach it. Their argument is that training isn’t copyright violation, not that sufficient training dilutes the violation.

Even if trained only on one source, it’s quite unlikely that it would generate copyright infringing output. It would be vastly less intelligible, likely to the point of overtly garbled words and sentences lacking much in the way of grammar.

If what they’re doing is technically an infringement or how it works is entirely aside from a discussion on if it should be infringement or permitted.

Basing your argument around how the model or training system works doesn’t seem like the best way to frame your point to me. It invites a lot of mucking about in the details of how the systems do or don’t work, how humans learn, and what “learning” and “knowledge” actually are.

I’m a human as far as I know, and it’s trivial for me to regurgitate my training data. I regularly say things that are either directly references to things I’ve heard, or accidentally copy them, sometimes with errors.
Would you argue that I’m just a statistical collage of the things I’ve experienced, seen or read? My brain has as many copies of my training data in it as the AI model, namely zero, but “Captain Picard of the USS Enterprise sat down for a rousing game of chess with his friend Sherlock Holmes, and then Shakespeare came in dressed like Mickey mouse and said ‘to be or not to be, that is the question, for tis nobler in the heart’ or something”. Direct copies of someone else’s work, as well as multiple copyright infringements.
I’m also shit at drawing with perspective. It comes across like a drunk toddler trying their hand at cubism.

Arguing about how the model works or the deficiencies of it to justify treating it differently just invites fixing those issues and repeating the same conversation later. What if we make one that does work how humans do in your opinion? Or it properly actually extracts the information in a way that isn’t just statistically inferred patterns, whatever the distinction there is? Does that suddenly make it different?

You don’t need to get bogged down in the muck of the technical to say that even if you conceed every technical point, we can still say that a non-sentient machine learning system can be held to different standards with regards to copyright law than a sentient person. A person gets to buy a book, read it, and then carry around that information in their head and use it however they want. Not-A-Person does not get to read a book and hold that information without consent of the author.
Arguing why it’s bad for society for machines to mechanise the production of works inspired by others is more to the point.

Computers think the same way boats swim. Arguing about the difference between hands and propellers misses the point that you don’t want a shrimp boat in your swimming pool. I don’t care why they’re different, or that it technically did or didn’t violate the “free swim” policy, I care that it ruins the whole thing for the people it exists for in the first place.

I think all the AI stuff is cool, fun and interesting. I also think that letting it train on everything regardless of the creators wishes has too much opportunity to make everything garbage. Same for letting it produce content that isn’t labeled or cited.
If they can find a way to do and use the cool stuff without making things worse, they should focus on that.

Yup. :/

I looked it up and it’s not unusual for sentencing in New York to take several months, but I would have been much happier if the political realities had pushed things to move faster.

Having read the prosecutions response to the request for delay that basically said “everything the defense said justifying a delay was wrong, here’s why a delay would actually be a good idea”, it feels hard to blame the judge too much for granting the delay.
Even though none of the reasons seem to be based on sound legal principles and are at best based on practical considerations.

I’m unaware of anything the judge has done that strikes me as particularly partisan.

“Not offending either party” is definitely not a partisan act. It’s almost the definition of nonpartisan.

I can’t fault him overmuch for granting the schedule change, since reading the letter from the prosecution regarding it they do seem to be effectively agreeing that it should be moved. If the defense requests a scheduling change, and the prosecution doesn’t object and makes some points about why it might be a good idea so as to “assist the court”, it’s pretty hard for a judge to deny the request.

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/25050972/2024-08-16-peoples-response-filed.pdf https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/25100931/people-v-djt-letter-adjournment-dec-9-6-24.pdf

Do you have a citation for him saying that he didn’t want to send him to jail? I feel like I would have heard something like that and the searches don’t turn up anything particularly relevant.

Well, I don’t think anyone was saying don’t punish political candidates, least of all me.

Being cognizant of a political context for an action just doesn’t seem unreasonable to me, even if it’s not how I think it should have played out.

Whatever sentence is given will have an impact on the political landscape in which that sentence is carried out, which can potentially directly undermine the sentence.

A prison sentence looks way more like political suppression than just “guilty but still speaking publicly”.

Still don’t think it was the right thing to do, but I can see why a judge who has otherwise seemed same and nonpartisan would be inclined to make that choice.

It is actually normal for sentencing to take a while after conviction.

My bet would be that it’s to avoid influencing the election rather than riots.

Whichever sentence he gives, it has the potential to make him more likely to win, thereby undermining the sentence.

Personally, I’d like to see justice happen in a way that can be blind to that outside context, but we don’t live in that world.

I don’t like it, but I get it.

True, but doctors will still recommend it because of you tell people they can’t have any seasoning they might just ignore you.
If you tell them they can have the other stuff, they’ll find it much easier to comply and it’s still much better.

So, at the time (1930) ball jar actually would have qualified as big business in the sense that you mean.
Home canning was very popular and they consistently bought out smaller companies.
Since they were privately owned, it’s tricky to find specifics about value, but they were “found a university”, “own a company town or two”, “chairman of the federal reserve” levels of rich.

So actually a pretty good use of government.

As written the headline is pretty bad, but it seems their argument is that they should be able to train from publicly available copywritten information, like blog posts and social media, and not from private copywritten information like movies or books.

You can certainly argue that “downloading public copywritten information for the purposes of model training” should be treated differently from “downloading public copywritten information for the intended use of the copyright holder”, but it feels disingenuous to put this comment itself, to which someone has a copyright, into the same category as something not shared publicly like a paid article or a book.

Personally, I think it’s a lot like search engines. If you make something public someone can analyze it, link to it, or derivative actions, but they can’t copy it and share the copy with others.

An object will always follow the shortest path between two points in spacetime.

When it’s sitting alone in the universe, the shortest path is to move through time from A to B.

When other things are present to also curve spacetime the shortest path can entail accelerating in space and slowing in time (from the viewpoint of us, the omniscient massless observer floating nearby pointedly not having any casual interactions).

Aluminum cylinders only.

Not aluminum? Not interested. Not a cylinder? Not a chance.

Squared off glass cylinder? Legally prohibited.