Sometimes I think it could be someone who was forced to embed the backdoor but was smart enough to make it detectable by others without raising suspicion by the entity that was forcing him.
Isn't the main problem that all the jobs are located at central spots? There is a huge amount of land where people can live. But building a cheap house at a location where you can't find a job leads to nothing.
There is also a kind of hype of homesteading. But you should not underestimate the huge amount of work it takes to keep yourself alive. So for most that is not an option.
> there are more people destroying their lives with drugs than people who can regulate their use
I agree with that for some drugs, but certainly not cannabis. That's observational; there are simply not enough reported cases of problems to make that true wrt cannabis use. Of course, that leaves the possibility that cases aren't reported.
Again, based on personal observation, I would be amazed if the ratio of cannabis users that 'waste their life' on the drug is as high as the ratio of alcohol users that do the same. And that's before you even take into account the harm caused to others.
> more people destroying their lives with drugs than people who can regulate their use.
I think you are either intentionally exaggerating, or vastly overestimate the number of people destroying their lives, or underestimate the number of people who use drugs (especially alcohol, consumed by >50% of the US population).
In my mind either you are for legalization of all drugs or you are for criminalization of tobacco, alcohol, and sugar.
Either we have the freedom to consume what we like and deal with the consequences or state has to nanny us and prevent us from consuming harmful substances altogether.
People are fast to point out that prohibition don’t work, but if there were no legal ways to obtain sugar a lot less would be consumed and a lot of weight would be shed by our fat population
Just imagine if harm and healthiness were actually the determining factor for what is and is not legal. Your comment made me imagine what the political parties might look like in the US. Would conservative and liberals move towards meats vs carbs vs veg?
I wonder if big-Keto would push for harsh penalties to illegal bakers? Maybe a 3 (bread) slices law would rise?
That doesn’t make sense. First in that list you have meat and vegetables which are produce and carbohydrates which are source of calories - i.e. vegetables are constructed partly from carbohydrates.
Sugar is easily the most addictive thing majority of population consumes regularly and it has huge health implications. Banning sugar would disproportionately improve health of human race compared to negative effects of allowing free range over all drugs
> Because it's really hard to take away something that is legal.
I agree, it is really hard to take something away that is established. About 10% of germans consume Cannabis at least once a year even though it is illegal. [1]
Keeping cannabis illegal has the same effect as prohibition of alcohol: higher substance concentration, more black market and greater health risks by acquisition through dubios sources.
Alcohol has a much more detrimental effect and still is completely legal (also: any attempt of banning it had quite bad results). So yes, some people don't handle it wisely. Lets not even get started on tobacco.
Or all the other substances, which are not drugs but very bad for your health when overconsumed. Like all the sugars, unhealthy fats. Fast food.
We cannot and should not penaltize all these things just because a few cannot handle them. Rather, we should invest into helping and preventing abuse. Of all above.
Same with many other drugs that has medicinal value, IMO. We can have a war on opioids all we want, but there are people who do need it, right? There will always be people who abuse it, be it cannabis or whatever else. I know for a fact it makes me lazy, so I do not use it.
Some days ago ICP showed it can run ML on a blockchain.
While this is nice and does show that distributed computing is a real possibility I also don't think that anyone is going to switch from Amazon/Azure to ICP any time soon.
But I must say the idea is really nice. It's very easy to develop Actor model based software and deploy it on ICP.
I would actually love it if you had a link with more info on that. Don't take this the wrong way, but my first guess would be that that basically isn't true; either it's not actually machine learning (as is understood today) or it isn't actually a blockchain but rather normal distributed computing being "verified" via blockchain somehow?
There are basically two approaches to on-chain inference: consensus-based approaches (several parties run inference and give a claimed result), and zkML (one party runs inference and proves the result cryptographically).
zkML can be done using general-purpose ZK libraries (since they support arbitrary computations), or there are some specialized tools for proving ML inference, such as https://github.com/ddkang/zkml. It's currently pretty expensive to prove huge models like LLMs, but there's a lot of work being done to make it more practical.
The difference between opinions in this thread is interesting.
I think it's mainly because some see a punishment as revenge and others as correction.
But, as user publius_0xf3 is showing, revenge does not work. The victims don't get their money back.
If this sentence is used as correction I also think it does not work. Would such a correction really take 25 years? His life is over. I don't see how such a long time is helpful to him, to his victims and to society.
I wish society would stop viewing punishment as a tool for the greater good, whether as revenge or as something that will "correct" the criminal.
Treating it as a correction feels like a lie that polite society tells itself in order to absolve itself of the distaste of knowingly harming someone. We shouldn't pretend we can "re-educate" anyone. We can merely provide opportunities for self improvement, but we can't actively "correct" them.
On the other hand, treating punishment as revenge is unhealthy too. It's too easy to get carried away and it's even easier to get carried away by perverse incentives (gestures broadly at US incarceration rates). Two wrongs don't make a right, as they say.
So then how should society decide what punishment is fair? I believe the punishment should be as harsh as an elected judge feels is necessary for the perpetrator to think, "it wasn't worth this"—and not a bit more.
Isn't that using punishment as a deterrent? It's easy to see it that way, but no. That would make punishment impersonal again— unbinding it from the specific person, place, and circumstance that we should elect judges to consider carefully and compassionately. In other words, when one says, "the perpetrator should be punished {this much} to deter the others", then the perpetrator becomes a pawn, not a person.
All that leads me to believe that: the purpose of a punishment should be to inflict a harm equal to the perceived personal benefit of the perpetrator's crime, as an enforcement action of the social contract between the perpetrator and society.
Isn't there tons of evidence that this simply doesn't work?
I mean, I don't know this SBF guy, but do you think he thought there would be no punishment if he got caught stealing 8 billion dollars? I think his plan was not to get caught.
He was judged before a jury of his peers and found wanting. It's not revenge, it's being held accountable for his actions. Some crimes, like murder, can't just be "corrected". The solution we've landed on as a society is for there to be a punitive cost to be paid by the responsible individual. In this case, it's jail time.
SBF caused an incredible amount of irreparable harm with his actions, which almost certainly has resulted in suicides. He deserves this punishment.
Self driving is a bit of a stretch here. There are already a lot locations around the world where autonomous vehicles are driving, even in the Nederlands.
For example in the Netherlands there is a container terminal that has been using autonomous trucks for decades. And since 1999 there have been autonomous busses in Rotterdam.
Yes they are self driving, but not as smart as self driving means today.
Self-driving in ports is a vastly simpler problem though because the environment can be closed and controlled and devoid of any UX concerns, making it basically a simple robotics problem.
Yes there doesn’t seem to be anything interesting here. They obviously aren’t developing anything remotely like the Waymo/Cruise tech, and no reason to think they’ve developed anything useful even within some highly constrained setting. I’d guess it’s a corporate feel-good project that will be wound down after the press release.
"The earliest computers were open sandboxes of creativity ... But later generations of devices, especially smartphones and tablets, are increasingly walled gardens"
Why? You can rate limit the business logic but still show the user the default flow.
For example: if a user is requesting a reset password link 10 times a minute you can just send the link one time but display everytime that a reset link was sent by email.
This flow is a bit different from a password reset email, it's a notification with a direct call to action, allow or deny.
You can't debounce them like you can with a reset password email flow.
With a typical password reset email, the actual password resetting is done by the user after they click the link in the email, only someone with access to the email can proceed, and they can only proceed on the same device that they clicked the email link.
In this flow, there is no further on-device interaction.
I expected a much higher price. While $190000 is steep it doesn't seem that much for such printer.
For example: Nexa3D ships SLS printers for over $500000
Before someone thinks it costs just $190 for a color 3d printer, its ~ $190K.
TIL that some countries use comma and a period for separating numbers and decimals respectively and some other countries use them the other way around.
