djcapelis

> In what world is public opinion not universally against the cartels? It's hard to take you seriously after that.

I think you’re getting tripped up by some specific wording and managing to miss the point the poster was making. The point should be taken seriously even if imprecisely articulated. While most folks are against the cartels, there’s a much wider range of belief on how much they warrant government or military intervention and to what degree we should be spending various resources on them. The historical state of play was(is?) that cartels are criminal organizations which are generally a policing matter that has escalated to specialized policing agencies and multinational networks of policing agencies. The marked escalation of the military into this is a more recent piece that is somewhat more controversial. One doesn’t have to be “in favor of the cartel” to ask questions about whether our military should be bombing boats or invading countries to ostensibly neutralize organizations that historically have been subject to policing operations.

To go back to the parallel… the public wasn’t in favor of Al Qaeda before 9/11 either, but there was a huge difference in the level of response the public was in favor of after. It turned from an intelligence monitoring level of response into an active military invasion of multiple countries.

> Anthropic makes some good stuff, so I'm confused why they even bother entertaining foregone conclusions.

I think it’s just because there’s enough people working there that figure that they will eventually make it work. No one needs Claude to run a vending machine so these public failures are interesting experiments that get everyone talking. Then, one day, (as the thinking often goes) they’ll be able to publish a follow up and basically say “wow it works” and it’ll have credibility because they previously were open about it not working, and comments like this will swing people to say things like “I used to be skeptical about but now!”

Now whether they actually get it working in the future because the model becomes better and they can leave it with this level of “free reign”, or just because they add enough constraints on it to change the problem so it happens to work… that we will find out later. I found it fascinating that they did a little bit of both in version 2.

And they can’t really lose here. There’s a clear path to making a successful vending machine, all you have to do is sell stuff for more than you paid for it. You can enforce that outright if needed outside an LLM. We’ve have had automated vending machines for over 50 years and none of them ask your opinion on what something should be priced. How much an LLM is involved in it is the only variable they need to play with. I suspect anytime they want they can find a way where it’s loosely coupled to the problem and provides somewhat more dynamism to an otherwise 50 year old machine. That won’t be hard. I suspect there’s no pressure on them to do that right now, nor will there be for a bit.

So in the meantime they can just play with seeing how their models do in a less constrained environment and learn what they learn. Publicly, while gaining some level of credibility as just reporting what happened in the process.

Tariffs in a rapidly growing and innovative industry always makes the country with lots of protectionism end up with less competitive products because they’ve removed the competitive pressures from everywhere else in the world.

We were left behind because we shelter our own car companies in a gentle cradle where they don’t have to compete. Both parties did this while saying they wanted to “level the playing field” but chose rates that were protectionist and made competitive products prohibitive not rates that actually created a level field.

We were left behind because we tried to protect our companies from facing the future. People in this country expect that one can stand on the shore of a beach and vote on whether the tide should go in or out, and that’s just not how the world works.

You’ve made the same mistake the poster you’re replying to pointed out. Women in lesbian relationships have a high rate of having experienced domestic violence in their lives, and a study reported this which has then spread around the internet as a meme of sorts. For the vast majority of those same women, the same study reported that the domestic violence they experienced was in a previous relationship, with a man.

So, no.

Most proposals for 9 bit bytes weren't for adopting 8 bits of data in a byte, they were to have 8 bits for data and 1 bit for something else, typically either error detection or differentiating between control/data. Very few folks argued for 9 bit bytes in the sense of having 9 bits of data per byte.

9 bit bytes never made significant headway because a 12.5% overhead cost for any of these alternatives is pretty wild. But there are folks and were folks then who thought it was worth debating and there certainly are advantages to it, especially if you look at use beyond memory storage. (i.e. closer to "Harvard" architecture separation between data / code and security implications around strict separation of control / data in applications like networking.)

It's worth noting that SECDED ECC memory adds about a 20% overhead, though it can correct single bit flips whereas 9-bit bytes with a parity bit can only detect (but not correct) bit flips which makes it useful in theory but not very useful in practice.

Yes. It’s a transfer if it’s the same train station. If it isn’t, it isn’t. :)

This article is not quite accurate like some of the others that have excitedly reported on this stretch a bit before it’s true. You cannot yet travel this all the way by passenger rail in either theory or practice. By only the narrowest of gaps: LCR ends in Vientiane and the train line to Bangkok terminates at Thanaleng outside town. The distance between them is not far, but it is not connected by rail with passenger service. I tried. I’ve ridden both the LCR, and the SRT service via the Thanaleng shuttle to Nong Khai prior to catching the sleeper to Bangkok. If there was a way to get from one station to another by rail between Thanaleng and Vientiane I would have done it!

This will change when the high speed rail to Bangkok is complete, but we’re not quite there yet.

Hopefully soon. :)

It’s a restriction either way. Whether it’s a reasonable one or one that meets elevated scrutiny is a separate second question. Your points are arguing that question and are reasonable context for that debate.

It’s not meant to say they’re the same thing, it’s meant to demonstrate clearly that venue restrictions even when content neutral can impose restrictions on speech and those restrictions must be balanced and scrutinized appropriately under our system.

I’m not, for what it’s worth. I’m arguing that I think the free speech case is stronger for the users and software distributors who are enjoined from the platform or distributing certain software applications than it is for the platform whose ownership but not content or speech is being directly regulated. (The law doesn’t fine TikTok it fines the people providing services to TikTok. Their speech rights may be more relevant in this case.)

I also see why people are interpreting my comment to mean that because it’s a restriction on my speech it’s not constitutional because that’s how people usually act on the Internet. But I don’t and didn’t. What I said was it was a restriction on my speech and I believe that’s more of interesting case than the restriction on TikTok’s speech. The ramification of that is that the courts would adjudicate the free speech restriction at an appropriate scrutiny level and determine whether that restriction is allowable. As we all know, some restrictions are allowable and constitutional. Others aren’t.

It’s not unreasonable, wild, or strange to point out that there’s a restriction on speech here, and to point out that conflict needed to be resolved to determine constitutionality.

Most are handled at the district level, if the court felt there was no legal issue at play, they would have denied cert. Their opinion did end up being per curiam which suggests the court feels clearly about the case, but does not suggest they never felt there was an issue worth arguing.

Yes, most of the court felt intermediate scrutiny was the appropriate standard in part because of the reasons you outlined.

(I also agree that this is a different case, I only point to Bernstein because it is a clear part of case law which states that software distribution is and can be a free speech issue and restraints on it would be expected to be evaluated with some level of scrutiny.)

Look, my point is that the first amendment is in play here and it’s not ridiculous to suggest a free speech analysis is required to hold the law as constitutional or not, which is what the court did and what reasonable people can agree or disagree around to what extent that speech should or shouldn’t be protected. (I personally think, as I stated that the free speech harm is a stronger case from the users who have now been restrained in their ability to use the platform and software distributors who are now restrained from distributing specific software than it is as applied to TikTok where the legislation is content neutral and so the free speech analysis is less relevant.) I’m not even claiming that this law should be found unconstitutional, just that there are free speech issues to adjudicate and the less obvious ones are probably more relevant than the one people are citing where the restraint is content neutral.

Your comment however draws a weird parallel later on though but first let’s take a moment here:

> Your 1st amendment rights are not being infringed by being denied access to TikTok

That is what the court found but it opens some interesting questions that really do have impacts.

I would bet that you would find a law that says op-eds can only be published in an approved list of venues to be clearly wrong, yet it is equally just determining venue and not content.

As would a law which banned foreign ownership of venues while also introducing a regulatory scheme for domestic ownership stakes of sensitive industries and defined news and commentary as a nationally security sensitive industry. (Which this law essentially does for certain types of apps.)

So at some point a law can be “content neutral” and about access to venue not content but I bet almost any reasonable person would agree it’s an unreasonable restraint.

Now for a situation you draw the above as a parallel with but is very different:

> just as the far right isn’t having their 1st amendment rights being infringed by being denied to use BlueSky as their platform.

Bluesky can do whatever they want but if the government were to get involved in defining regulations around which users could use BlueSky… yes absolutely I would expect it to be thrown out on first amendment grounds and expect it’s a significantly stronger case than any of the examples above.

It’s a much weaker and almost irrelevant case when directed at a non-governmental organization in which some folks are using “free speech” as an argument over what entities which are not enjoined from almost any actions may do with their own venues. But yeah, if it was the government telling BlueSky who to ban? You bet that’s got first amendment implications and I’d expect a court to review it under strict scrutiny. (And I wouldn’t expect it to survive.)

The first amendment enjoins the government from actions. Private companies are welcome to ban or regulate their own venues as they see fit.

Did you read the opinion? It did its analysis as requiring some level of scrutiny because of the free speech implications under intermediate (and in Sofomayor’s concurrence strict) scrutiny. It held the national security concern outweighed the free speech concern but it absolutely did not say it was relevant in the analysis.