The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
No bio...
User ID: 174
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
5d ago
Pretty sure the documents themselves have clear classification markings on them?
Even if this is the case -- and we in fact do not know that -- it would only be noticed by examining the document. Just casually looking in the open box would not make it obvious. There's a reason cover sheets are very noticable like that.
To the public, maybe?
And to the court, at the time.
The claim is true, though
How do you know? At this point you have only the FBI's say-so.
Do you actually think this made a difference in anyone's reaction to this case?
Yes, there was in fact a lot of screaming about "OMG nuclear secrets" and "OMG HUMINT, Trump's getting our spies killed!"
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
11d ago
Your original post expresses considerable contempt for "tech folks" and demonstrates absolute joy for us having regulation "dropped" on us "in a much stronger way that you really won't like." This really doesn't fit with an idea that you think the regulations will be anything like easy or simple to follow -- rather, you actually think they will be difficult and painful to follow and are joyfully anticipating the pain it will cause.
Yeah, regulation sucks. It's terrible that in the "real" engineering professions, you need a minimum 10 years of experience before you're allowed to do anything more than turn the crank on well-tested models to determine if some very slight variation of an existing thing meets all the requirements, and then fill in all the boxes on the paperwork to maintain traceability. Doing that has high costs; applying those costs to the software industry as a whole will cause it to stagnate.
None of that is the actual rule. This is the actual rule:
If a recipient adopts or applies sex-related criteria that would limit or deny a student's eligibility to participate on a male or female team consistent with their gender identity, such criteria must, for each sport, level of competition, and grade or education level: (i) be substantially related to the achievement of an important educational objective, and (ii) minimize harms to students whose opportunity to participate on a male or female team consistent with their gender identity would be limited or denied.
ETA: The Supreme Court (and lower courts) should look at this, look at Title IX, note there's nothing in Title IX about gender identity, and throw out this regulation as lacking statutory basis. But they won't; they'll save it with deference if nothing else.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
9d ago
Insurance helps individual drivers because they can pool their risk with all the other drivers. A self-driving car company selling a sufficient number cars may as well self-insure. And yes, the expected cost of liability would be baked into the cars in either case, but I expect if they got it right, self-driving cars would be prohibitively expensive. If they got it wrong they'd go bankrupt when they big verdict came up.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
10d ago
The previous time I heard this sentiment was from conservatives criticizing universities for being too left-leaning/left-biased.
It's pretty common for the leftists to take rightist talking points and throw them back, often in situations where they don't really apply. It's not that surprising they'll also use them against other leftists.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
9d ago
Yes this is a trivial problem to solve. We already have a massive auto insurance industry. Everything looks like self-driving cars will be safer than human drivers.
The auto insurance industry works because there's a relatively low cap on liability per accident (after which they stop paying out and the driver is on the hook, but the driver is an individual who likely doesn't have much). Once the manufacturer is on the hook, that cap is irrelevant.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
9d ago
Do you think the cost of self-driving car insurance would be higher than human-driven car insurance?
Human-driven liability insurance doesn't cover everything. Losses are limited. If you start a chain-reaction collision and kill a whole bunch of people, your insurance company will pay our to your maximum, and you'll lose everything you have and have to declare bankruptcy. Maybe you'll go to jail or commit suicide, but either way your victims ain't getting anything more. If a self-driving car does the same, the losses are limited to the value of the self-driving car company, which is likely far greater than any individual. And the company has far more exposure. And the plaintiffs and juries know the self-driving car company has much deeper pockets than an insured driver, so I expect you'd see more lawsuits per incident and higher judgements.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
9d ago
Unfortunately, if manufacturers of self-driving cars can be sued for all accidents in which self-driving cars are involved (the "caused" part doesn't come into play until the lawsuit is underway), self-driving cars are essentially banned. The cost of covering that liability is staggering.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
11d ago
My read is that they literally just need to fill in that table that I mentioned on page 32. That's not a lot of reams.
I don't think the "detail" required is going to fit in that table. So it's going to be a reference to some much longer document which explains each item, in language understandable to regulators. And then all this will have to be reviewed by a lawyer specializing in UK regulations. And every time a change is made to the device, the document will have to be audited to ensure there's still compliance.
Of course just this one document isn't going to do much, aside from make new IoT devices less available in the UK and other countries adopting it as mandatory. The more regulation in more countries, the more the works get gummed up.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
7d ago
The guns are never, ever going to go away.
A gun buried in your backyard might as well have gone away. They may eventually do sweeps to gather up the majority of them, but even if they don't, in time you or your children will have forgotten about them.
DIY manufacturing gets easier and more accessible every year
Making guns isn't that hard, for competent machinists (of which fewer and fewer are being produced). Making ammo, on the other hand; as far as I know there's no way to even make firearm brass from non-firearm materials, never mind the chemicals. Smokeless powder requires restricted materials (nitric acid). Primers require restricted materials AND are super-dangerous to manufacture on the sly.
The gun culture has gotten more radical, but with ATF declaring firearm parts to be firearms, they'll start rolling up people soon enough, probably starting with those who post videos on the internet. This will "encourage the others" to keep their mouths shut (lest they get picked up by the feds), and the knowledge will no longer be passed along, and the culture will die.
are doing an excellent job of radicalizing the community as a whole to reject the legitimacy of gun control laws
Well, see, there's the problem. They don't. The community isn't radicalizable. At their base, they think the laws preventing me from getting a gun in New Jersey -- a requirement to be vouched for by 2 unrelated adult residents, and a requirement to produce the name and hospital affiliation of any mental health professional I've ever seen -- are reasonable restrictions if administered by decent people. They may be upset by the time it takes to get things approved or the requirement to get a new set of vouchers for every handgun or shit like that, but basically they don't believe in personal freedom or individual rights because they're not liberals (in the Lockean sense). The "second amendment" people are, but they're a small subset. Most red tribers would be fine if they could be assured they could keep their personal guns.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
8d ago
But there was never any announcement of an end to the epidemic. For all I know, it might still be going on!
https://www.cdc.gov/rabies/location/usa/surveillance/wild_animals.html
It is! It got much worse, and now it's back down to 1982 levels.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
8d ago
The Bureaucracy is losing the fight on gun control, and they are losing it permanently.
Certainly they are not. There have been some Supreme Court decisions, but the blue states just ignore or even defy ("Spirit of Aloha", "No Second Amendment in New York State") them. And with Rahimi the Court is poised to neuter Bruen. ATF is getting shirty (and shooty) with gun dealers again, not to mention classifying every L-shaped piece of metal a firearm. In New Jersey I still can't buy a gun or carry one if I had one. And even in Virginia, didn't they pass a bunch of new gun control?
Abbott did beat them on the border, I was wrong there. But that's a tiny light in a sea of darkness.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
10d ago
The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, both state and federally. State courts are certainly allowed to evaluate the constitutionality of state laws.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
6d ago
No, people like a strong horse, not a dead horse. If Trump is assassinated, the Democrats think "good!" (and we probably have a few stories celebrating it, including on major media though those will be quickly toned down) and the Trump base is demoralized, leading to a Biden landslide.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
8d ago
The Republicans would rather lose forever than tear apart the country that way.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
11d ago
If it's really so easy there won't be any problems. But I'm pretty sure, given the absolute glee expressed in your original post, you know it isn't.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
11d ago
It does. Force works for everything, if you can apply enough force. Treat someone who makes a joke as if they're a violent criminal, and they will think making jokes makes you a violent criminal. Brainwashing works.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
9d ago
Liability also doesn't come into play until the suit is underway.
The expenses start immediately.
And yes, I predict that if actual self-driving cars become more common, either we will see limits on liability or the companies will be driven out of the market or out of business.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
15d ago
we're kind of fucked if we don't resolve the sex war.
Well, not fucked, really.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
23d ago
Robinson should just be overturned in its entirety, sidestepping all this. The Cruel and Unusual Punishment clause is about the penalties which can be imposed for lawbreaking, not about the actions which can be forbidden. There's nothing about status or conduct in there. But the court is too conservative to overturn bad non-conservative precedent (except on abortion)
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
10d ago
Or do you have some weird twisted argument that literally any epsilon>0 of regulation instantly grinds innovation to a halt?
It never stays epsilon.
Architecture, for instance. Do you know what architects do nowadays? It isn't really to design buildings. It's to figure out a way for any given space to satisfy fire regs and ADA regs at the same time, while still being usable. If there's anything left over for creativity, it's taken by energy efficiency rules.
Aircraft I mentioned in another post. No flying cars, no supersonic jets, and the big aircraft manufacturers aren't even planning new designs, just variants on old ones.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
10d ago
What do you think is "the way we talk about flying cars today"?
The idea that we'll ever have them is an utter joke, and has been since before Avery Brooks made a meme of it. And that's true, it is an utter joke. But at one time people thought we would have flying cars. The ever-increasing regulation on anything airspace-related has made it so we don't have flying cars, we won't have flying cars, fewer people have their own aircraft, and even flying toy airplanes is mostly illegal.
There are of course substantial technical barriers to flying cars, but almost no one is even interested in trying to overcome them because the regulatory barriers to marketing them and getting the general public to be allowed to fly them are obviously insurmountable. No one goes into the aircraft industry unless they want to live, sleep, and breathe FAA regulations; nobody's designing better airplanes, the whole object of the business is to make more cost-effective (cheaper or more fuel-efficient) airplanes while still satisfying the myriad FAA regs. Which mostly means finding some way of claiming the new airplane is a variant of an old one, otherwise the regulatory cost of certifying the new airframe AND getting pilots certified on it is too high.
If the regulators get their way, we'll have the same thing in household automation. We'll still be doing the dishes the same way (only with less and less effective dishwashers, since it's an obsession of the US government to do dishes without water), laundry (same thing about effectiveness) and cooking too. Nothing that could be automated will be (except toys like the Roomba)
The operative part of Title IX is
No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.
It is possible, though unlikely, that the Supreme Court will find that a large part of the enormous edifice of regulation hung off of this simple statement is a violation of the major questions doctrine. It is more likely that specific regulations will be struck down as having no statutory basis. But if the regulations are upheld, there's no way nullification will be accepted.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
10d ago
There's no point in talking about the specific merits of the specific regulations, since doing so is like the old joke about the prostitute -- "we've established that, now we're just arguing over the price".
Once you've accepted that the government should be regulating this sort of thing your road to hell is paved and greased. The end state might look like aircraft where nothing actually new can be built because the regulatory barriers are too high, it might look like buildings which all have to be basically the same because the rules constrain the solutions overmuch, it might look like dishwashers and laundry where new things are forced to be less and less effective due to regulators' efficiency obsessions. It won't look like innovation. It's not that any epsilon amount of regulation instantly kills innovation to zero; it's that having the regulatory framework in the first place makes satisfying the regulations Job One, and that job tends to expand until it fills the space. Over time, not instantly. And it tends to drive out the kind of people who would do the innovation, because they hate all the box-checking, on top of hating all the constraints themselves.
It's not true at all.
More options
Context Copy link