I think you’re getting tripped up by some specific wording and managing to miss the point the poster was making. The point should be taken seriously even if imprecisely articulated. While most folks are against the cartels, there’s a much wider range of belief on how much they warrant government or military intervention and to what degree we should be spending various resources on them. The historical state of play was(is?) that cartels are criminal organizations which are generally a policing matter that has escalated to specialized policing agencies and multinational networks of policing agencies. The marked escalation of the military into this is a more recent piece that is somewhat more controversial. One doesn’t have to be “in favor of the cartel” to ask questions about whether our military should be bombing boats or invading countries to ostensibly neutralize organizations that historically have been subject to policing operations.

To go back to the parallel… the public wasn’t in favor of Al Qaeda before 9/11 either, but there was a huge difference in the level of response the public was in favor of after. It turned from an intelligence monitoring level of response into an active military invasion of multiple countries.

I think it’s just because there’s enough people working there that figure that they will eventually make it work. No one needs Claude to run a vending machine so these public failures are interesting experiments that get everyone talking. Then, one day, (as the thinking often goes) they’ll be able to publish a follow up and basically say “wow it works” and it’ll have credibility because they previously were open about it not working, and comments like this will swing people to say things like “I used to be skeptical about but now!”

Now whether they actually get it working in the future because the model becomes better and they can leave it with this level of “free reign”, or just because they add enough constraints on it to change the problem so it happens to work… that we will find out later. I found it fascinating that they did a little bit of both in version 2.

And they can’t really lose here. There’s a clear path to making a successful vending machine, all you have to do is sell stuff for more than you paid for it. You can enforce that outright if needed outside an LLM. We’ve have had automated vending machines for over 50 years and none of them ask your opinion on what something should be priced. How much an LLM is involved in it is the only variable they need to play with. I suspect anytime they want they can find a way where it’s loosely coupled to the problem and provides somewhat more dynamism to an otherwise 50 year old machine. That won’t be hard. I suspect there’s no pressure on them to do that right now, nor will there be for a bit.

So in the meantime they can just play with seeing how their models do in a less constrained environment and learn what they learn. Publicly, while gaining some level of credibility as just reporting what happened in the process.

We were left behind because we shelter our own car companies in a gentle cradle where they don’t have to compete. Both parties did this while saying they wanted to “level the playing field” but chose rates that were protectionist and made competitive products prohibitive not rates that actually created a level field.

We were left behind because we tried to protect our companies from facing the future. People in this country expect that one can stand on the shore of a beach and vote on whether the tide should go in or out, and that’s just not how the world works.

So, no.

9 bit bytes never made significant headway because a 12.5% overhead cost for any of these alternatives is pretty wild. But there are folks and were folks then who thought it was worth debating and there certainly are advantages to it, especially if you look at use beyond memory storage. (i.e. closer to "Harvard" architecture separation between data / code and security implications around strict separation of control / data in applications like networking.)

It's worth noting that SECDED ECC memory adds about a 20% overhead, though it can correct single bit flips whereas 9-bit bytes with a parity bit can only detect (but not correct) bit flips which makes it useful in theory but not very useful in practice.

This will change when the high speed rail to Bangkok is complete, but we’re not quite there yet.

Hopefully soon. :)

I also see why people are interpreting my comment to mean that because it’s a restriction on my speech it’s not constitutional because that’s how people usually act on the Internet. But I don’t and didn’t. What I said was it was a restriction on my speech and I believe that’s more of interesting case than the restriction on TikTok’s speech. The ramification of that is that the courts would adjudicate the free speech restriction at an appropriate scrutiny level and determine whether that restriction is allowable. As we all know, some restrictions are allowable and constitutional. Others aren’t.

It’s not unreasonable, wild, or strange to point out that there’s a restriction on speech here, and to point out that conflict needed to be resolved to determine constitutionality.

Most are handled at the district level, if the court felt there was no legal issue at play, they would have denied cert. Their opinion did end up being per curiam which suggests the court feels clearly about the case, but does not suggest they never felt there was an issue worth arguing.

(I also agree that this is a different case, I only point to Bernstein because it is a clear part of case law which states that software distribution is and can be a free speech issue and restraints on it would be expected to be evaluated with some level of scrutiny.)

Your comment however draws a weird parallel later on though but first let’s take a moment here:

> Your 1st amendment rights are not being infringed by being denied access to TikTok

That is what the court found but it opens some interesting questions that really do have impacts.

I would bet that you would find a law that says op-eds can only be published in an approved list of venues to be clearly wrong, yet it is equally just determining venue and not content.

As would a law which banned foreign ownership of venues while also introducing a regulatory scheme for domestic ownership stakes of sensitive industries and defined news and commentary as a nationally security sensitive industry. (Which this law essentially does for certain types of apps.)

So at some point a law can be “content neutral” and about access to venue not content but I bet almost any reasonable person would agree it’s an unreasonable restraint.

Now for a situation you draw the above as a parallel with but is very different:

> just as the far right isn’t having their 1st amendment rights being infringed by being denied to use BlueSky as their platform.

Bluesky can do whatever they want but if the government were to get involved in defining regulations around which users could use BlueSky… yes absolutely I would expect it to be thrown out on first amendment grounds and expect it’s a significantly stronger case than any of the examples above.

It’s a much weaker and almost irrelevant case when directed at a non-governmental organization in which some folks are using “free speech” as an argument over what entities which are not enjoined from almost any actions may do with their own venues. But yeah, if it was the government telling BlueSky who to ban? You bet that’s got first amendment implications and I’d expect a court to review it under strict scrutiny. (And I wouldn’t expect it to survive.)

They concluded that these regulations were okay at those levels of scrutiny, but it is not absurd or ridiculous to analyze these as forms of speech, and indeed, our courts do so.

That said, just because there is a conflict with freedom of speech doesn’t prevent all government regulation, it just means the laws involved must pass an elevated level of scrutiny. That applies here, for multiple reasons, and with multiple parties.

Another huge difference is broadcasting is about usage of a shared resource and has always had regulations on who is allowed to do what. They don’t ban RT from setting up their own venue or printing a newspaper. RT and other outlets are able to operate in the US and people are able to chose to watch them.

It’s a restriction on my speech. Telling me where I can publish a video? Telling me what apps I can download? Telling my software vendor what software they’re allowed to let me get? Telling internet providers what servers they’re allowed to let my device access?

The law doesn’t fine TikTok. The law fines the people who let me download an application I’ve chosen to use. At $5,000 per instance.

It’s not about TikTok’s rights being violated. It’s about mine, and yours.

Also. Comparing support for MAID with defendant rights is a false equivalence. The correct equivalence there is whether or not someone still favors criminal rights if they were personally on trial. Not someone who personally becomes less magnanimous to criminals they are personally affected by. The equivalence the other direction would be asking loved ones about someone else's decision to undergo MAID, and asking them subset of folks around them who aren't ready to let them go yet how they feel about MAID. (Though in both cases of MAID and not wanting the wrong person to be thrown in jail for a criminal action as a victim, I suspect the drop in support is less than you think it is.)