ahtihn

This is someone in HK judged under HK jurisdiction. That's fine.

My point is it's weird to expect website operators to be aware of every jurisdiction on the planet and take steps to comply with each of them.

If that expectation becomes common, the obvious way to go isn't to block the countries you aren't allowed to serve. It's to only allow the ones you know you are allowed.

Imagine how the internet would be if you were default blocked from accessing any website hosted in a different country.

How do you "actively" offer a website to a country?

Websites aren't broadcasting, they are waiting there and responding to requests. Why should it be on every server in the world to have to figure out whether they're allowed to respond to a given request based on the client's country?

Why is it not the user's responsibility to not send requests? Why isn't it the ISP's responsibility to not route the requests? And every single router in between?

All civilized countries have the concept of gross negligence where you can be prosecuted for knowingly doing something that causes harm as a side-effect.

The point is precisely that with a sample size of one, this doesn't tell us anything about whether Ivy League PhDs in general don't get jobs.

Maybe this person's applications include things that are big red flags. Maybe when they get to the interview stage they give off the impression they are a fraud?

Maybe they're even lying about the 2000 applications.

No it wasn't and it's not even close.

Anyone can declare anything.

You think China just lets US law enforcement do investigations on their territory without their consent??

Israel's conflict with Iran, maybe. Israel's conflict with Hamas is irrelevant though and that's what people are protesting.

That doesn't really answer the question.

why do we (residents of western countries) pay attention to Israel? There's nothing relevant to our lives happening there. It's not more relevant than Ethiopia or Sudan.

Why are we paying so much attention to what's happening in Israel then?

What do you care about the value of the house you're living in?

What did you do to deserve the massive raise in value of land since you bought that house besides buying early?

Any private entity has that right though.

I, as a person, can decide I won't do business with a company that uses Anthropic models for whatever reason. I can even decide I won't do business with a company that relies on suppliers that use Anthropic.

This right applies to private companies too. Like Walmart could set contract terms that their suppliers aren't allowed to use AWS. The suppliers are free to accept those terms or not.

Is it a good thing for society that Amazon grew that large?

That's a common issue in orgs where sales are incentivized based on size of contract without regard for the profitability of the contract.

See also: selling features that don't exist and cost more to implement and maintain than the contract is worth.

It's a contract, you're free to negotiate?

If you agree to those terms knowing it's unrealistic, you're agreeing to give away your service for free.

> Which internet provider can deliver reliable access to remote regions than Starlink?

Why do remote regions matter? No one relevant lives there.