wcarss

- at a minimum, your id will be stored on random servers where it can be stolen

- at a medium, you will have annoying and intrusive identity checks required to use many common websites

- at a high medium, you will not be able to use a non trusted computer and identity stack: get on a windows, apple, or google device and use their identity services in their browsers, or else you cannot use the internet

- at a maximum, all activity you and everyone takes online will be monitored and faithfully tied to your or their verified identity. This total loss of privacy will result in a total loss of freedom of speech and assembly online.

That last point is the direct aim of the people driving these laws.

Attestation of age should suffice; no one in a building somewhere needs to verify my age. If I tell you to treat me like a minor, you do it. Operating systems and browsers can work together to send this as a header. If you're a concerned parent: set your children's ages in their device accounts.

Done. This alternative solves the whole problem and it's been brought up a million times, but it doesn't matter, because this isn't about protecting children or anything about ages. It's about locking down anonymity, and money for a few interests who want to be the verifiers and craft a future where they hold the keys.

yeah, I have to admit I was commenting on possibilities here without having gone into the article yet -- having now looked for real, I agree that the disruptions don't seem very useful for actual jamming and repeatedly like this for years across satellites and bands in this specific way doesn't make sense for some mistaken targeting either.

Or actual jamming mistargeted for some reason, or used because it was deemed necessary.

I don't disagree with you, but your example of nails and their cost reductions made me wonder whether we reached a meaningful limit in say, some fundamental material terms, or whether we just reached a limit in terms of return on investment.

Return on investment can be too low because the investment required is really high, but it can also be too low because the returns are just limited. If prices had dropped 90%, surely nails became even more ubiquitous, but at that stage there's only so much more money to dig out of the cost reduction hole. It feels plausible that there may have been ideas about more digging that could be done, but the reward just wasn't there in the market, especially versus just selling what worked.

I bring it up because the distinction in one specimen may speak to a larger trend: do new sigmoid developments tend to fail to materialize more often because of serious physical limits / lack of good ideas, or because of limitations to ROI? (Or, other things?)

In the arena of AI, the ROI on more intelligence/unit-cost seems pretty high right now. So, it seems like the difficulty of applying any potential innovations would have to be staggering for none to be pursued. Or, there'd have to just not be any good ideas to try.

Overall, I think there's ideas to try. So in my opinion, that shapes out to justify a bullish sentiment on sigmoids continuing to stack until the perceived potential gains from more intelligence/unit-cost somehow fall off.

Like I said, I don't disagree, we really don't know. But I feel it's a good bet that there's more coming.

Just answering with a possibility here, but they could be seeking freedom from liability for failure to moderate content or ensuring their service is "not harmful". If it's only for consenting adults, and every adult can be pinned down with an identity, whatever happens can have the blame assigned away from meta.

edit: I took too long to write this :)

I agree with what you're saying about writing something twice or even three times to really understand it but I think you might have misunderstood the WET idea: as I understand it, it's meant in opposition to DRY, in the sense of "allow a second copy of the same code", and then when you need a third copy, start to consider introducing an abstraction, rather than religiously avoiding repeated code.

I don't think this diminishes your point, but, for a thing like memory, your father may be maintaining it by insisting on relying on it. It may diminish regardless, but its diminishment may slow down.

At work, we are in a certain kind of race. In life, we are in a certain other kind. To paraphrase a recent Brandon Sanderson talk about creativity in an era where AI can outpace and possibly soon, out-quality a professional, "The work you do on _you_ can be _the art_."

> Jevons paradox isn't relevant to cognitive surplus

Could you elaborate on this? Is it just a claim, or is there some consensus out there based on something that it doesn't/shouldn't apply?

This is the take, very well said. I've been trying to use analogies with cars and cabinet making, but building a house is just right for the scale and complexity of the efforts enabled, and the ownership idea threads into it well.

Going into the vault!

This is not true.

When you spend Canadian dollars at a business owned by a Canadian, you're sending that owner and the Canadian government your money, in exchange for their goods or services, normally at a surplus of value for them. You are 'helping' them; you are 'investing' in the Canadian economy. You are justifying the existence of their business and the jobs of the people who work there.

Especially insofar as you're making this choice versus American options, you are putting money into the hands of Canadians rather than Americans. This is the underlying concept behind boycotts and voting with your dollars or feet.

lol, uh, I'm pretty sure they actually can't.

You or a business with legal owners can have a bank account, and you can give access to that account to an agent, but real banks work in the real world, and "know your customer" regulations need a real person somewhere in the chain.

But, hey, maybe I'm wrong.

For anyone else who briefly got very lost at PFC, probably "prefrontal cortex".