Those activities frequently overlap. No, Cub Scouts does not care that the high school basketball game overlaps with the camping trip because Cub Scouts are not in high school. Parents are (still) not able to be in two places at a time.

This means that at least some of the time, the older kid goes to their game without their parents. (Because the younger child frequently cannot.)

If you are able to solve this for those parents, you can be the first $1B single-employee company.

When I grew up in the South, football & basketball games were Friday & Saturday nights. Apparently this was common[1].

1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friday_Night_Lights_(TV_series...

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS12300060

- product liability

- negligence (civil or criminal)

- Computer Fraud & Abuse Act (requires intent, which after N "accidents" seems like a jury should at least evaluate whether intent is present as understood in a courtroom. Hard to blame "surprise" after the Nth "accidental" breakout.)

The bottom line is that if you or I trained a local model and it did any of this stuff, we would experience Consequences. ("Don't try this at home!") But an artifact of our unequal legal regime is that big rich companies generally do not and thus brazenly touting their immunity is part of their business strategy.

Are police routinely collecting prompts/guidance given to these agents and determining whether the agents were directed to commit crimes? If not, this seems like a huge oversight.

Also as you are a lawyer -- how does this law align with the authors of viruses/worms? Are they de facto assumed to have had ill intent because others labeled their works as "viruses" or "worms"?

In the context of this article -- we may not need a new ban specific to preventing private equity from owning medical practices. We could simply enforce existing laws around e.g. market consolidation, consumer harm, etc.

Adding a new law to also be ignored seems silly.

Unpopular knowledge is that these businesses are generally illegal in their current forms under existing US law. The relevant laws are still in effect, they are just rarely enforced. The scale of the lawbreaking runs to the trillions of dollars annually, and it directly harms every US consumer.

The illegal conduct is so pervasive that even explaining the existing federal law makes one sound ridiculous, because companies have been explicitly advertising illegal behavior for decades. Because there is no sanction.

One of my faves is the notion that $BIG_RETAILER can buy in bulk and get better pricing, which they pass on to the consumer. You may have seen a company advertise something like this. It sounds like smart business! There is an active federal law[1] that explicitly prohibits this arrangement.

Lack of enforcement of that law is a factor in the disappearance of the American "high street" and the demise of many small retailers.

My #1 call for reform in the US is to simply start enforcing laws, even if doing so makes rich people/companies uncomfortable.

1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robinson–Patman_Act

> “Died of a COVID linked complication with COVID and other issue that is also linked to that complication.”

Where people refused to acknowledge the "linked complication" part of it at all. Many people refused to consider a death as being due to Covid unless the person literally suffocated, ignoring Covid's clear links to many other cardiovascular conditions.

Anyway, I agree with what you're saying here.

The main point is you were writing advice to someone as if they were building the website, when most of us are not generally building the sites we use.

I have had financial websites impacted by adblockers, which is why I stopped using them. (I do not work on all of the teams building the financial websites I use.)

Big rich companies take on debt for reasons that are sometimes inscrutable from the outside. Recently, they have been borrowing for ~5%, about a half point above what the US government gets for 10-year Treasuries.

Apple has been financing operations with debt for a number of years as part of a complex optimization plan.

No, Google is not broke.

This is really obnoxious coming as people are still missing after historic flooding in Asia (via lots of concentrated water vapor, I guess).

First is frequency. Even using Pangram's claimed numbers, the University of Georgia should expect to see several false positives every week. Remember that the metric is # of assignments run through Pangram, not number of students. A campus of 40k students will see many more than 40k assignments every week, and so should expect honest students to be accused of cheating with some high degree of frequency. You're comparing infrequent events (death penalty sentences) to high-frequency events (students submitting assignments).

And obviously, you are citing a company marketing document as fact, of which we should all be suspicious. (There are also obvious problems with the eval dataset that the paper does not address.)

Second, you're using the upper bound for Pangram's claimed numbers and the lower bound cited in the NIH publication.

> at least 4.1% would be exonerated. We conclude that this is a conservative estimate of the proportion of false conviction among death sentences in the United States.

The one commonality is that

That 2% is a large number! Of people who will have their integrity impugned for no good reason! That's not okay!

Your calculations also are mixing assignments and students. The rate of false positives of 1/10k is of corpuses, not students. 10k students might each submit 2-3 written assignments per week. Obviously, this greatly increases the impact of the false positive rate.

And all of these numbers are dependent on lab conditions for usage, which are not the case in the real world.

> I don't think 100% accuracy is logically possible.

Yes. Which is why marketing this product as it currently is, is a deeply irresponsible endeavor.

IMHO a big problem with Pangram in particular is that they market it as a reliable tool that can be used to catch students cheating. This can obviously have disastrous effects on young lives, because it is not as reliable as they suggest.

Per their own benchmarks, they do not achieve 100% accuracy even on text that is published on the Internet, and which is likely encoded into the models themselves.

There is validity to their goals, but that is overshadowed by the irresponsible way in which it is marketed.

(All of this, swirling in a context where students are being told that they absolutely must become proficient at using LLMs to do exactly this kind of work by the highest levels of state and federal governments, faculty leadership, as well as the leaders of the workforce into which they hope to graduate. The message to youth is extremely muddled at best.)

I think you would be pleased at the very first selling points on their website, as well as on the product page. It seems they have at least considered the most obvious issue in their product space.

> the grueling two hour drives

What country are you in, and perhaps more importantly, what roads are you driving on?