wslack

And when it is tried, somewhere, the results then add to the momentum. Local dynamics will always be a little chaotic and that's ok.

Legal incentives against better internal communication/coordination create so much inefficiency. The legal system should focus on outcomes more than internal comms.

No other administration has used the "supply chain risk" designation against an American company. This is unprecedented.

By that logic we should expect all governments to regress to totalitarianism, which hasn’t happened, and isn’t what’s happening here.

The question isn’t if some would attempt these behaviors, but rather if we and our democratic structures empower those people or fail to constrain them.

I think aggregators are useful to tell us what actually moved voters in a campaign - the swings are visible even if baseline error is not.

It's free as long as Cash.app wants to maintain it. I'd rather there'd be no incentive to complicate the tax code such that many people need to hire accountants to figure it out.

We know that. The mainstream discussion, use, and personification of LLMs does not suggest that.

Then lawmakers should change the law, instead of a private actor asserting that their need overrides others' rights.

It should do that, because it's still not actually an intelligence. It's a tool that is figuring out what to say in response that sounds intelligent - and will often succeed!

There's an incentive problem here because litigation is so expensive. If the fine is large enough, it becomes more and more worth it for the company to fight it in court - and therefore more expensive to the regulatory agency's legal budget. The only folks who benefit from it going to court are private lawyers.

Whereas, settling meets the company's incentives (eliminating uncertainty), meets the regulator's incentives (bad behavior is stopped locally). The moral hazard created by making fraud seem less risky (because the punishments aren't that bad) is born by the public.

The solution here would be to limit the possible legal shenanigans that companies can use to increase the cost of taking a case to trial.

The author of this is presenting their view and you have hours of content to watch about this if you want to dig into it. One problem is that "lab leak," as Peter says, means a bunch of amalgamated theories. It's hard to discuss this without going through in depth, which is what this debate tried to do.

> is it fine to work on open source projects at Meta, or is it bad because Meta is bad?

I think OP would say its better to work on open source at Meta than closed source at Meta, and we should celebrate someone being paid to write open source. We can also condemn their specific employer while not denigrating their open source compensation.

re your second point, looking at this thread, "what is open source" is taking up a lot of the brainspace.

Representatives have elections to determine how long they can serve; career civil servants have strong protections against firing but the downside is a challenging hiring process that can be very slow.

USDS's willingness to use term hires makes hiring folks in easier, in addition to ensuring that the office doesn't become stagnant.