It's too bad that "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized" has become "we can download a full copy of all of your files at any time, or continually, if we feel like it, even if we don't suspect you of a crime".
You must be new. The Constitution is an irrelevant piece of toilet paper now.
The first amendment only protects you unless the people in power say it doesn't. The government will pressure private companies to censor you. This was provably demonstrated under the Biden administration.
The second amendment is useless. One third to half of the country doesn't recognize the right to keep the majority of the useful arms that exist, nor the right to bear them in any meaningful way. The (Republican-leaning) Supreme Court has decided that states requiring permission slips to exercise a right is a totally valid precedent. The Republican district attorney for D.C. proudly states that having a gun there for any reason is an immediate offense. Donald Trump has been recorded suggesting to take guns from people before due process. And that's ignoring the Democrats' unfathomably large track record against this amendment. I just wanted to include the fact that neither side actually supports this amendment, as much as people like to believe.
Third amendment is pretty obscure in our era. So far, at least. But you could make the roundabout argument that the Biden admin preventing landlords from evicting their unpaying tenants, particularly if those tenants were currently or previously employed by the military, would violate this amendment.
Fourth amendment doesn't matter anymore. We have entire government agencies whose primary purpose is to ignore this amendment. It's not even a conspiracy, nor a conspiracy theory. They do it in plain sight, and everyone knows, but apparently nobody cares (in which case why does the amendment even matter). Also, as long as the government gets the data from private companies (even if by force), that apparently doesn't constitute a fourth amendment violation these days.
Fifth amendment: civil asset forfeiture is disgustingly rampant all across the country. Not enough people know about it or care.
Sixth amendment: the term "speedy" regarding trials is an extremely loose one, especially now. Especially considering the government is apparently allowed to hold you indefinitely without an actual trial, without facing any repercussions.
Eighth amendment: judges impart excess fines quite often. See the Alex Jones case.
Ninth amendment: completely irrelevant now. If the government believes they have the right, though not explicitly enumerated, then they have the right.
Third Amendment issues come up every now and then. For example, legislators have tried to force airlines to provide special services for U.S. military at their own expense:
I'm not saying these men and women aren't deserving, but the taxpayers should foot the bill. A private property owner shouldn't be forced to. Fortunaely, these bills never get far.
Interesting. I haven't heard of many examples. Thanks. Seems the issues that do pop up tend to be loosely related to the original wording. It was focused on quartering in homes.
Though it does say "but in a manner to be prescribed by law." Wouldn't that mean that this bill would technically be viable?
I doubt it's OpenAI. Maaaybe somebody who sells to OpenAI, but probably not. I think they're big enough to do this mostly in-house and properly. Before AI only big players would want a scrape of the entire internet, they could write quality bots, cooperate, behave themselves, etc. Now every 3rd tier lab wants that data and a billion startups want to sell it, so it's a wild west of bad behavior and bad implementations. They do use residential IP sets as well.
Stop just making up excuses for these companies. Other comments on this story have showed the bots are using openai user agents and making requests from openai owned ip ranges.
It's like how we "can't" stop spam callers when telecoms know exactly who is calling who, they just don't want to implement any protocols that benefit society because they rather make money while fucking over everyone.
As someone with a self-hosted Mercurial instance dealing with this, I will say that the big names (OpenAI included, but not exclusively them) generally at least use proper user-agents and respect robots.txt, but they are still needlessly aggressive compared to traditional search indexers.
There are also scrapers that are hiding behind normal browser user agents. When I looked at IP ranges, at least some of them seemed to be coming from data centers in China.
Maybe? We seem to be able to characterize all the stuff we have access to. That doesn't mean we couldn't say produce new and interesting materials with new knowledge. Before we knew about nuclear fission we didn't realize that we couldn't predict that anything would happen from a big chunk of uranium or the useful applications of that. New physics might be quite subtle or specific but still useful.
There isn't even a general physical theory of window glass -- i.e. of how to resolve the Kauzmann paradox and define the nature of the glass transition. Glass is one of man's oldest materials, and yet it's still not understood.
There's also, famously, no general theory for superconducting materials, so superconductors are found via alchemical trial-and-error processes. (Quite famously a couple of years ago, if you remember that circus.)
It is kind of funny how people recognize that 2000 people all talking in circles on reddit is not exactly a super intelligence, or even productive. Once it's bots larping though suddenly it's a "takeoff-adjacent" hive mind.
There's nothing unsustainable about that btw. Imagine everyone puts $1 into a central pension fund for 40 working years, until they retire and withdraw $40 at 65. Now just cut out the bank account and have the working people fund the payments directly. Works out to the same given a constant rate of people. There's more nuance of course about the time value of money and demographics, but the direct new->old connection does not imply it's a scheme of any kind. Ponzis require exponential growth in new entrants by contrast rather than just population entry rate ~= exit rate.
After think about this a little: since these charts are per-driver, rather than per-mile, they're probably not as favorable as they seem. I would guess that retirees drive much less on average than working individuals.
This is really underselling it tbh. Any land that's growing corn in a developed country is likely top 1% of land on earth. Half of the earth is desert and tundra. Which is still incredibly easier to work with than space because you can ship there with a pickup very cheaply. Maybe when nevada and central australia are wall-to-wall solar panels we can check back on space.
If nothing else, the epstein files have really opened my eyes to the rich and famous's complete disregard for spelling, capitalization, and punctuation.
Every MLB game I've ever been to has had that happen lol. 3 'first pitches' and then the actual start of the game happens with absolutely zero fanfair, so it's very easy to miss. In general they announce very little audibly about the actual game, it's a very different experience from watching on TV.
Apparently ~75% of the positions in the lichess database (as of 6 years ago) have only been seen once ever. Average game length is 30-40 moves, so for the completely average player it would be like 10+ moves I suppose. The stronger the players the longer it will take: I found some comments suggesting 20+ for high level players.
It depends totally on the opening. You can be out of book and database far quicker than that for offbeat stuff, or in book far longer for popular openings.
Another distinction needs to be made between positions seen and positions played. Almost every viable position will have been seen in preparation well beyond 10 moves. But seeing them on the board is rarer.
I don't think the math is correct here. The 25% of positions that have been seen more than once represent more than 25% of the occurrences. Even if all of them would be seen only twice, you should already see them in 40% occurences.
reply