ldoughty

I believe you're mireading my statements.

I am not meaning / attempting to attack you. I was curious about why two Democrat presidents were being called out on something that seemed like a republican-themed billk. Upon investigation, I saw they signed it -- yes, as you said -- but also even if they didn't sign it, or vetoed it, it would still have passed with 98 to 100% on congressional approval.

I felt this was an important fact, in our highly political time, to point out this was one of those bipartisan bills that made it through.

I could additionally add that the house and senate were Republican controlled during the initial act, so the fact it got to Clinton during split-branch control is additionally proof of the bipartisan nature... But I was attempting to be beef and fa tual, and the given information I felt was sufficient to convey this was bipartisan.

I would have preferred more facts with your initial comment. It would have saved me some research time... Since I did the extra work, I decided to share it to save someone else that effort.

Everything about politics has to have enough footnote and caveats to make people's eyes bleed... but boiling an act down to a single person is not appropriate unless they were the champion of it, or it's intended as a placeholder for the party.

It sounded odd to me that Clinton/Obama would champion this... It felt very free-market / Republican thing to do, especially with it being called the "Privatization Act"... So I looked for more info.

Sure enough, it was introduced by Republicans... But Democrats share full blame on this if you think it's wrong... and the measure passed by so much it's almost pointless to call out the president because -- as you noted -- if the president fought it, there probably wouldn't be unanimous consent followed by 98% approval on amendment. So again: Why call out the presidents and not the party numbers except to inflame?

It has to be 18 months after public disclosure before the company has to send out a letter letting them know that someone might use their information, and they are eligible for yet another free credit monitoring service......

/S

That's a very narrow view...

The people in charge of companies usually have large amounts of stock in their companies... And often bonuses tied to metrics that often includes stock. If their share price drops 50%, that's a personal "net worth" and/or "salary" loss which, unlike most people, they have bounce-back control.

"We need to trim the workforce", "improve margins", "show we are still a solid company"

The above doesn't just happen in AI/Tech stocks, it happens EVERYWHERE... Small business owners see their retirement portfolio hurt, they can't fix those companies, but they might reevaluate what they do in the next 2-3 years so they can get their retirement back on track... How do they increase profits while lowing costs? Try to cut staff/hours, find (perhaps foreign?) cheaper suppliers.

I think AI stock bubble bursting won't result in large scale layoffs, I think it will result in large-scale _trimming_ across the economy, which is almost worse. AI will be expected to fill in the gaps to increase productivity for less than the cost of an employee, which means slower rehiring .. AI will rebound at a "more correct" evaluation. And hiring will slowly pick up as companies see they still need people to produce.

Viewing the stock market as purely a casino -- the executives are the house at various casinos... and the house likes to win at the expense of the players (anyone not a casino)

> How is the whole economy exposed to AI?

Out of fear/ uncertainty, investors don't just pull out of AI, but the stock market in general.

More money shifts to bonds/commodities, not just people selling AI, but Coca-Cola and Johnson and Johnson, etc.

Of course, the impact would not be equally distributed, staple stocks will crash less, but there will probably be overall a huge pull out as people panic shift assets.

The resulting downturn likely means a crashing job market (temporarily) as government says "there's no way we could have known" and slowly try to stem the bleeding... Meanwhile unemployment shoots up in any industry that needs consumers (retail, food services, etc., but less so healthcare, government), and companies are nervous to hire on a shaky economy (see: early COVID).

The energy shock will also say inflation should go up, but the crash would want to decrease inflation... Companies will likely have to eat costs to keep prices low to sell inventory that cost them more to acquire.

It's all one big economy.

Note: this is all big hand wavey speculating. The moment things start to turn south there numerous things governments can do to help (e.g. handouts, reduce interest, open oil reserves, etc) so what ultimately does happen is anyone's guess. This is just one scenario based on the fact the current US government prefers uncertainty in the market, e.g. we've had peace with Iran ~8 times according to the USA, but Iran claims some of those statements are false. The straight had been reopened ~5 times, but Iran disagrees there to. Seems like the _goal_ is uncertainty

What qualifies as AI generated? If a human writes it then has AI improve/fix it, does that count?

How do you tell which is the case?

If we don't allow AI help at all, is that perhaps discriminating against those who don't feel comfortable posting with imperfect English?

I agree in principle, but am concerned in implementation... I'm not sure we can be fair without high risk of discrimination

Edit: typo fix

Edit: or am I AI?! And making edits looks more legit.... (To be clear: I'm not, I play by rules)

Looks like the intended use case here is you buy the cartridge once, and refill it, and OpenPrinter won't lock you out after doing so like HP does.

but if facebook/google are the buyers, they do not violate this law... the law seems to focus on the sale & giving of this data... not the reception. This means that they just need a non-Massachusetts based data broker to sell them the data, and then they can store that data to make advertisement decisions (so long as they do not forward it along)

Will this have reach and teeth though?

I can imagine loopholes to this... nothing stops facebook/google from buying this data from companies not in Massachusetts? and facebook/google don't have to give advertisers the location information but can still use that information when determining the advertisement to return, right? In theory the big silicon valley "targets" of this bill don't actually have a huge incentive to give this data away, do they? They just need to be able to read/access it, which I don't think this law stops? Assuming the data broker is not doing business in Massachusetts itself

Really cool! But right as it was nearing 4,000, it seems to have corrupted itself and no longer got any scores above 0. Not sure if that's a code bug or a neural net issue.

avg500 -4.6 last 500 episodes

peak 3959.3 best window

roll/s 20.68 20-step avg

progress 4388 562749 episodes

> The Claude Platform on AWS is a first of its kind offering for Anthropic, giving you all native Claude API features from day one. Anthropic operates the service and data is processed outside the AWS boundary.

So it's not... On AWS... ?

This statement sounds.... Backwards?

I get they have another option that is in AWS, but this continues the cryptic naming problem AWS already is overloaded with

The owner of the private space generally has authority to deny this already, there's no need for an additional law.

In the US at least, any private homeowner/renter can deny entry to their property, barring legal warrants and exceptional circumstances. A business can have a policy, and is generally legally protected as long as the policy is 1) equally applied, and 2) does not violate ADA... A court would have to weigh in if glasses are allowed or not for ADA... but I suspect there's already a case where a movie theater banned such glasses and they would probably(?) win, since such individuals could be expected to have non-recording glasses.