AnIrishDuck

> the incentive to mine that particular area drops considerably, dropping the chance to discover potentially brand new materials that would have been found the normal way.

FWIW, I think the metaphor breaks down with this framing. This isn't really a problem associated with strip mining, what's left behind is generally low or negative value (toxic). I'd suggest a different metaphor, from Wikipedia:

> This process involves the removal of all ground vegetation in the area, which is a detriment to the environment.[19] Topsoil may be placed over the tailing along with planting trees and other vegetation. Another reclamation method involves filling in the hole with water to create an artificial lake. Large tailing piles left behind may contain heavy metals which can leach out acids such as lead and copper and enter into water systems.

This feels very similar to the issues with algorithmic problem "mining". It has the potential to destroy the human ecosystems surrounding these problems, leaving barren wasteland behind where nothing can grow or flourish.

I hate to break it to you, but you are currently still responsible for killing somebody while driving a car on cruise control, especially if you act recklessly.

EDIT: to be less snarky, there are obvious exceptions if a manufacturer defect is involved. But I still imagine it turns on things like foreseeability and proximate cause (IANAL). Nevertheless, if you were asleep at the wheel, you're getting held responsible.

Area vs volume.

If these are the temperatures on the surface, think of the depths. There is a whole additional dimension to multiply (integrate) across.

The added energy is far greater than you might think simply by looking at the surface.

Yeah that checks out too. I'm basically regurgitating what I was told when working the electronics aisles at a hardware store.

After reading the wiki page more thoroughly, there were just a bunch of different issues. Goes to show what happens when you make a seemingly benign but fundamental change in a system full of parts designed for something different.

> Why would Anthropic get to dictate how someone uses a "tool" (that's literally what Claude Code is... a tool in a workflow)

This is a direct conflict in framing. They clearly do not see Claude Code as a "tool in a workflow" but instead as a service that will eventually replace all programmers.

I think the self-evident quality of the various parts of the Claude Code universe is a pretty obvious indicator of the problems with that approach. It is still important to understand a party's thinking if you want to understand their position.

> They're swimming upstream. Trying to maintain a rapidly shrinking moat and not being very creative about it. Making enemies of your users is often a failing strategy.

Time will tell, but I agree that they are indeed in a tough spot. Probably not for the reasons that they think.

There are plenty of other more recent examples in this thread.

I was simply replying to the original statement that China doesn't kill protesters in the street. The notion is so risible that in hindsight it may well have been sarcasm or bait.

But, if you wish to expand the scope of this discussion, sure. There are several clear distinctions between the (horrible) events you list and what happened in Tiananmen Square.

The most obvious is that we are free to talk about them now. I submit that the Chinese state's continued censorship of the subject is a sign that (1) the state is still complicit in these crimes and (2) it is not "doing great".

The scale of brutality is also just incomparable. I say this fully agreeing the events you list were terrible. The horrors committed at Tiananmen Square were simply on another level.

> This idea that there's some kind of difference between me watching you from a park bench in public and hundreds of thousands of clones of me watching you from every street corner in public is, quite frankly, bogus

To paraphrase the quote, quantity has a quality of its own.

You don't have to, that's the point.

EDIT: or to rephrase, this proposal is opt-in (device attests the user is a minor) not mandatory (device is required to attest the user is an adult)

Or we have devices attest user age. On setup, the device has the option to store a root ("guardian"?) email address. Whenever "adult mode" is activated or the root email is changed, a notification must first be sent to the prior root email. That notification may optionally contain a code that must be used to proceed with the relevant action, though the user should be warned of the potential device-crippling consequences.

This setting is stored in a secure enclave and survives factory resets.

I will note that these two systems are not mutually exclusive. There are plenty of ways to "think of the children" that don't trample on everybody's freedom.