It shouldn't, because that doesn't make a lick of sense. Government-funded research came up with the vaccine. Why would the government owe a debt to private industry for selling it back to us?

If you paid for me to build a house that I rented back to you, should you be grateful for having a place to live?

We have seen these companies repeatedly ship coding harnesses without any attempt at real sandboxing, and encourage people to let them run free. Seems that if they've somehow solved coding, they'd be able to solve making it easy for people to sandbox agents, and to be fully aware when they've enabled some LLM the ability to hack companies. Why don't they put 10,000 agents on that instead of ripping off Navier-Stokes?

No, only metaphorical AI spinning blades and flamethrowers should be regulated. Actual AIs with spinning blades and flamethrowers will be subsidized and unleashed in your town.

The RICO statute explicitly mentions copyright violation (likely in order to go after media bootleggers), yet these people have admitted and evidence has been shown that as an organization they knowingly downloaded hundreds of thousands of books illegally in order to extract information to them to rent to the public. They knew they were doing this from the CEO down, knew it was against the law, and have settled in court for a massive fine. Why haven't they been charged?

I don't see the point of creating more dumb rules that won't be enforced, and slipping in new privileges and erosions of antitrust that will be enforced and indemnify them of any future consequences. I bet something in it will likely indemnify them retroactively for the RICO charge they are so obviously guilty of (whether or not the result of this copyright violation is considered "fair use.")

> (1) “racketeering activity” means [...](B) any act which is indictable under any of the following provisions of title 18, United States Code: [...], section 2319 (relating to criminal infringement of a copyright), [...]

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-96

It's like a sucker's (or a fraudster's) war cry to say that the people who are already hooked into a venture are the only ones who should be allowed to point out that it might be a scam.

$20 https://slowerliving.club/phones/dumbphone-2/

$30 https://slowerliving.club/phones/nokia-200-4g/

$31 https://slowerliving.club/phones/nokia-210-4g/

$48 https://slowerliving.club/phones/nokia-215-4g-2nd-edition/

$81+ https://slowerliving.club/phones/nokia-235-4g-2nd-edition/

$59+ https://slowerliving.club/phones/agm-m10/

$79+ https://slowerliving.club/phones/agm-m11/

$80+ https://slowerliving.club/phones/tcl-flip-4-5g/

$70 https://slowerliving.club/phones/unnecto-snap/

And I'm stopping because why not just use the linked page. There seem to be dozens more sub-$100 options. Is the snark because there are a range of phones here, from mighty stupid to no app store/social media to just smart with a throwback physical keyboard? Are they not angry enough at smartphones to be allowed to tell people about dumbphones?

The page literally lists the Apple Watch.

This certainly seems like something a national health service (or even insurance company) should be doing in its own interest (in order to direct spending), and wouldn't have any intrinsic bias towards any particular outcome other than an accurate one. The problem is that you need a government that is not also owned by the drug company.

In the US we have an enormous amount of government health care spending that would benefit from more knowledge about the effects of these drugs. There's no reason why we should ever take the drug company's word for anything. The research was likely originally done in an academic setting, and likely largely government-funded. The only reason the drug companies get these drugs from that environment is through corruption.

> The Bayh-Dole Act made a key change in federal contracting procedures that allowed contractors the right to retain ownership of inventions made with federal funding.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayh%E2%80%93Dole_Act

If you ask your child who enjoys video games to stop playing video games and do their homework, and they tell you they don't have any homework, you're silly (trying to use a kind word) if you don't apply far more scrutiny than if they told you that they had an enormous amount of homework that would keep them from playing video games for the next few days.

You don't need evidence to question this. That the reply is convenient is itself evidence. The reply is consistent with someone who is lying in order to play video games. It is not proof.

So people who were fat and get to a normal weight, if you've always known them as fat then they look like they've aged a decade or two in a year. People who were totally normal weight (i.e. "overweight" according to BMI, which is associated with a longer lifespan than "healthy weight") end up looking like tuberculosis Romantics because they wanted to look like movie stars (who are often on severe, unhealthy diets that they stop when they're not working.)

Losing weight quickly often loses it badly - think meth addicts. Women lose fat from their breasts and both sexes lose the fat pad around the eyes; I think these are generally stable fat stores that don't really replenish after being used, even if you gain the weight back. It's not specific to GLPs, just quick weight loss. If you'd lost more slowly your body wouldn't have resorted to taking from those places. Now, you have super-deep nasolabial folds and marionette lines.

> lost weight with diet and exercise

You lose weight through diet. You gain fitness through exercise.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50133964

Points: 1

# Comments: 0

If they actually said something, it would be much less effective.

> We're not talking about a few % difference here.

How may freedom percent is it again? Do you lose 1% or 20% for failing to allow foreign ownership of utilities? How many percent do you gain for stopping Russian misinformation?

Now is when you make sure that the agencies are scrutinized before they give out inflated ratings, and make sure that this nobody agency's ratings aren't enough to get the stuff sold where it could do real damage.

You don't wait until the baby is drowning to worry, you worry when he's stumbling around next to the pool. Even then, you've gotten involved way later than you should have been.

Funny that the truth is the opposite. We have a comically massive trade deficit. But we're not actually friends; you just want some of that money. The "friendship" is that we rip off your countries, your elites sell your countries away piece by piece, and then they send their spoiled children to the US to get on the other side of the trade, too.

The US doesn't owe immigrants any more than they owe the people who don't have the means or desire to bail on their own countries. In fact, the emigrants have usually already gotten their share. It's the people left at home who need the help (or need the US to stop "helping.")

It's better for them to lose the fantasy. It's a brain drain on the world, and an excuse for the US not to educate its own properly.

Many, many people used them for stalking. I personally know somebody whose estranged husband did. I try to keep myself pretty ignorant of Apple products, and it was the first time I got a detailed explanation of how they worked.

This can get stupid sometimes like when they're expecting everybody to keep over 1.0 when there are people with 10.0; but usually when they're doing that it's because it's a scammy tracker (all private trackers that you have to pay to join are scammy no exceptions) and they're trying to extort people who fall below 1.0 to give them money.

But expecting people to upload is part of the deal. That's not about being old, that's about being selfish. Non-scammy private trackers make it very easy, and some just concentrate on gatekeeping and don't worry about ratios at all.

Your basic point is very true, though. The way many private trackers have lasted is to stop letting people in almost entirely. To get into a non-scammy tracker you have to know somebody irl who is on and active, and they still might not be able to get you in. Or they will pretend like they can't - inviters sometimes get punished for the quality of the people they invite, and you think sharing back is something children do.

I don't think this matters a bit. We individually can't demonstrate "consciousness" in other humans, it's not even a word with a definition. What we can do is miss the feeling of discovering something on one's own rather than having it explained to you over and over again until you understand it.

I mean, dead mathematicians are definitely not "conscious," but their books keep you from discovering things that you may have discovered yourself if left to your own devices.

The joy that was mentioned is the joy of knowing a bit of gossip that no one else knows, of being the first explainer. Interpretation is just being able to pass gossip on; a decidedly lesser joy. And there's no reason that AI shouldn't be able to explain findings in an intuitive way - LLMs at least purely operate based on human intuition as written in human communications and then captured in matrices.

If these proofs are good (doubtful, imo) and can be reduced (intuitively distilled, sorry), there's no reason that an LLM shouldn't be able to do that.