xvokcarts

But the goals are clear in this case, no? The regulator said "do X the way we tell you to" and the regulated decided to do Y instead in order not to break the regulation requiring them to do X in a certain way.

So it is not normal/correct to have an agreement with a partner that excludes others?

I have a feeling this is like pursuing knife alignment: some people are hurt or even killed by knives, therefore knives now need global alignment.

That's exactly what's happening with the far-right and nazism labeling (in the EU the nazi label is worse compared to terrorist, also legally).

> pivot conversations when someone asks you about something you actually know or are good at, it might be a trick, tell them you're dumb instead

Spot on, can relate to that :)

Why were you trying to dox the archive owner?

Build it underground if feasible, or build a parking garage with high-economic-contribution units in upper floors.

That's because a government-run LLM would be like government-run media.

High inflation? No, the government LLM will tell us we're doing great.

I understood it as out of a few thousand songs, Deezer only failed to match 2.

> Companies exist to provide jobs. Not only to make money for the owner and externalise all the negative effects on society.

I think it's safe to say that the one who starts something has the privilege to make the call on its purpose. And I'd bet most if not all people who start companies do so in order to make money for themselves, and providing jobs is a means to that end.

So, if a company could make profit without employing a single person, it would still serve its purpose.

I guess a lot of people feel that if they didn’t have the ability to know about all relevant products and services, the quality of their lives wouldn’t suffer.

Such regulation would inevitably introduce exceptions for products with limited-time use (because it doesn't make sense to support everything forever), manufacturers would explicitly mark all products as such, and consumers wouldn't even find it wrong.

New incentives to would hit market reality where most people want cheap devices, not lifetime support for something they themselves consider practically disposable.

If most consumers don't care, regulation won't help. Much like climate change.

How does it work?

I think it's the mass immigrations that (some) people are calling out as not in their own best interest, without necessarily believing the immigrants are bad or in any way worse humans than themselves to call it racist.