domain:streamable.com
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1m ago
This is not what I have said. Not even remotely. I would be perfectly happy with actions that don't end all of tinkering. I would prefer them!
And you have also explicitly said that if actions that would not end all tinkering are not enough, you would end all tinkering. You may prefer less drastic solutions, if you are open to the possibility of ending all tinkering, than I have described your views 100% correctly.
We can move this to the other thread, because this was your solution.
Stop. I only brought this up as an evidence that I have correctly characterized your views. Stop shifting your the responsibility for your responses on Nybbler, you're the one that said this.
but first let's see if you're willing to proceed with your own solution.
What the hell is that supposed to mean? I'm not the Nybbler. It is, in fact, my solution, so yes I'm willing to proceed with it. But I'm not willing to work with someone who's open to the option of abolishing all tinkering.
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
4m ago
That was, in fact, the context of one of the two cases, within the broader case that my lack of a job makes my failure to reproduce less excusable, not more, because being a welfare parasite puts me in one of the few income brackets with above replacement TFR.
ControlsFreak
4m ago
I don't see any documentation requirement for user interfaces. But it would seem that they are required to put on the table that they are intending for it to be a user interface. "We have assessed that this interface provides user benefits, e.g., debugging." Simple.
IGI-111
6m ago
Or if one of those gets sunk by hypersonic missiles. Or if you run out of people to con into manning them in exchange for IOUs.
I think it's quite reasonable to put a decent chance of dollar collapse happening within the next 50 years actually. Especially now that the dam of signing oil contracts in other currencies has broken. Though I'm still betting on Japanese style long term containment.
It becomes more likely if NATO decisively loses the Ukraine war. When force is the only thing backing the entire system, any large display of weakness is a potential black swan.
ControlsFreak
7m ago
"default passwords must be purged from the face of the Earth, even if it means the end of all tinkering"
This is not what I have said. Not even remotely. I would be perfectly happy with actions that don't end all of tinkering. I would prefer them!
Nybbler would declare that this is, in fact, changing the culture of people who mass produce end-use consumer goods. That this is the only way, that we have to change their culture. If that is required, I am willing to do it.
We can move this to the other thread, because this was your solution. In the other thread, we can discuss whether you're willing to pursue your solution, even if it changes their culture. I am still open to arguments that your solution has too many demerits to be implemented, but I am currently on the side of being willing to do your solution, even though you have now discovered that it will, in fact, change a culture. I could be persuaded otherwise, but first let's see if you're willing to proceed with your own solution.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
11m ago
I'm not offended, I just think your behavior is immature, and it's bizarre you expect a response that is not like-for-like. One of your objections early on in our exchange was:
Some folks have quadrupled down on this hyperbolic claim, and are now claiming that I am making a hyperbolic reverse claim - that regulation cannot possibly impact innovation in any way. This is a bullshit strawman.
I don't understand what's wrong with that from your point of view. You love doing that shit yourself, so just let others do it as well.
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
12m ago
That's a nice legal theory you have there.
Let's say you're an engineer at one such company, and you want to expose a UART serial interface to allow the device you're selling to be debuggable and modifiable for the subset of end-users who know what they're doing. You say "this is part of the consumer-facing functionality". The regulator comes back and says "ok, where's the documentation for that consumer-facing functionality" and you say "we're not allowed to share that due to NDAs, but honest this completely undocumented interface is part of the intended consumer-facing functionality".
How do you expect that to go over with the regulator? Before that, how do you expect the conversation with the legal department at your company to go when you tell them that's your plan for what to tell the regulator if they ask?
Quantumfreakonomics
14m ago
I don’t doubt for one minute that Trump had classified documents, but it does suggest that the intended audience for the indictment was the American Electorate rather than a federal judge. Thinking back to the political situation at the time the charges were unsealed, Jack Smith and the Justice Department probably thought this was the kill-shot for Trump’s campaign.
ControlsFreak
16m ago
Yeah, I don't understand what you're offended by. All we did was check to see if your solution destroys a culture, and we discovered that your solution destroys a culture. Simple as. This is just a straightforward description of what went down.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
18m ago
ResoluteRaven
20m ago
I think there's some conflation of the fact that we're living through a geopolitical inflection point when lots of important events worth discussing are happening e.g. the Ukraine War, US withdrawal from the Middle East, the rise of China, etc. and the fact that rising polarization in the West means that what would otherwise be individual clickbait stories can be easily slotted into long-running culture war narratives that make us feel like we have been discussing the same thing forever e.g. anything to do with Trump or woke ideology in schools.
AnonymousActuary
24m ago
The story I heard was Milton Friedman came up with withholding...hated the idea of it as a more small government person, but thought it was the best way to get enough money to win WWII.
No idea how true that is.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
26m ago
Again, explain to me, why are you expecting a reasonable response if this is how you interact with people?
netstack
Texas is freedom land
29m ago
cover sheets
Hot damn. If the FBI managed to screw up the investigation of what should be obvious misconduct, I’m going to be so disappointed. Let’s see what exactly they did…
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/05/03/mar-a-lago-trump-classified-documents-00156124
Looks like they added placeholders and cover sheets when they initially sorted the fifteen boxes. And then possibly failed to remove them? Assuming every cover sheet was left in the count, and there are really only half as many documents as stated in the warrant, that could mean Trump’s 15 boxes held fewer than 100! Witch hunt!
This is stupid. It’s also not the cause of the delay, which stems from the complaint that those searched boxes are now out of order. How much did they change? No idea. How did they notice the change? Because the contents were exhaustively documented after the seizure.
It’s not a great look for the prosecution. But it also has no bearing on the facts of the case. If Trump’s team could point to any version of the boxes as favorable, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. I don’t mind a delay of the trial, but I’m not going to treat this as exculpatory.
I don't know what you mean by this. What is "the trivial solution"?
Whatever you meant when you said "(and by the way, we can do so trivially)".
I am not injured in any such way. I explicitly presented the value of stopping the deluge of trivially-hackable devices with default passwords as a terminal value. You're just really off the mark.
I think you're being rather coy about it. When you tell me things like:
If you want to characterize any version of "we need to fix this problem (and by the way, we can do so trivially)" as being "my way or the highway", I think this is just a fully-general argument against fixing any problems ever, even the most trivial ones.
That means you're proposing a trivially simple fix, and consider me to be stubbornly and unreasonably standing in their way. That does not come off, "default passwords must be purged from the face of the Earth, even if it means the end of all tinkering". You do say the latter when someone talks to you for a bit, but this is after posts and posts of portraying anyone that objects as unreasonable and hyperbolic.
I actually explicitly said that I would consider all possible ideas, and that I was even open to the possibility that all options genuinely have too many demerits to implement. Literally in the comment you were just replying to. Please don't lie about what I've said.
You're the one lying about what you've said:
Nybbler would declare that this is, in fact, changing the culture of people who mass produce end-use consumer goods. That this is the only way, that we have to change their culture. If that is required, I am willing to do it.
You were literally explaining to me how getting rid of default passwords is a terminal values of yours just a moment ago. What are you even doing?
ControlsFreak
32m ago
There you have it, @ArjinFerman. You're a culture-destroyer. You just didn't know it.
I mean, I can hardly blame you, though. It was the only choice you had. Literally if you do anything, Nybbler will think that you're a culture-destroyer. There are only two options: do nothing and have billions of trivially-hackable devices with default passwords... or be a culture-destroyer. That's it. That's the dichotomy.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
40m ago
If you regulate mass-produced end-user consumer goods, you will destroy the culture of innovation in that sector, yes. But that's what you want, you've said so yourself; you explicitly want to change the culture of the outgroup you have that consists of software people who refuse to color within the lines.
cjet79
40m ago
There are obligations you agree to and obligations that are forced upon you. If I agree to deliver 10 widgets to you then back out, I've backed out of an obligation I agreed to. If government says I need to deliver 10 widgets to you then I back out, I've backed out of an obligation that has been forced upon me. Obligations that are forced upon people seem like takings to me. If I had any faith in older supreme courts I'd wonder why they weren't considered 5th amendment violations.
Which isn't to say I think the ADA way is right either, I'd rather just have a mandate passed on what a company needs to do, set up a department, people make complaints and the government either finds in the companies favor and does nothing, or uses government power to force the company to comply. Then you could also measure the cost both to the company and to the government of enforcement without diluting the whole purpose of having a government.
I would be somewhat fine with this solution if they also kept track of the costs of these mandates, possibly by allowing partial tax write offs for anyone complying with them. I'm not really firmly fixed on a particular solution for this problem, just firmly in the position that it is a problem.
A mandate without funding is just a sneaky tax and spending scheme that doesn't get added to the government balance books and has far less oversight and checks/balances than other forms of spending. Even if you are a big government liberal there are good reasons to dislike this kind of scheme. There are not unlimited resources, and unless you only care about one particular pet issue that is using one of these mandates without funding then there is less wealth available for all other issues. Take this pet example:
All businesses must spend about $10k to accommodate a particular disability. The disability can also be fixed with a surgery. Fixing the disability for everyone would average out to about $5k per business. The government in this case could tax the businesses $9k each, spend $5k paying for fixing the disability, and then have $4k in tax revenue left over. The business is happier with this solution, the disability is solved for all cases (and places that get exclusions from ADA aren't also excluding people with the disability.)
I am Libertarian, but I also was an Economics Major in college. The ADA stuff bothers my economist side just as much as it bothers my libertarian side. If I am going to have a government doing things that I don't like, can I at least ask that they not do it stupidly and waste a bunch of money?
IGI-111
47m ago
It's yet one more of these irregular verbs.
I defend myself.
You air unfounded theories about the prosecution.
He is held in contempt of court for raising the specter of fear for the safety of the jurors and of their loved ones.
ControlsFreak
50m ago
if the trivial solution does not work, you won't think twice about destroying the tinkerers' culture
I don't know what you mean by this. What is "the trivial solution"? I don't have any idea what you mean by it. We've been talking about the entire class of possible solutions that stop billions of devices from being trivially-hackable with default passwords. Which one is "the trivial solution"?
My complaint with you is that you're acting injured that anyone would portray your values as terminal
I am not injured in any such way. I explicitly presented the value of stopping the deluge of trivially-hackable devices with default passwords as a terminal value. You're just really off the mark.
I think your link was meant to be this. Frankly, I interpret Nybbler's silence as rejecting your proposal. We can clear this up right quick, though. Hey @The_Nybbler! Arjin says:
My personal way of squaring that circle is that I'm open to regulation on mass-produced end-user consumer goods, and a more freedom on anything that requires some deliberate action.
Do you think this will destroy the culture, since anyone who wants to make mass-produced end-user consumer goods will be reduced to nothing but checking boxes? Or do you think that he can do this without destroying the culture?
My problem here is that if it doesn't work, you explicitly said you won't stop at it.
I actually explicitly said that I would consider all possible ideas, and that I was even open to the possibility that all options genuinely have too many demerits to implement. Literally in the comment you were just replying to. Please don't lie about what I've said.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
55m ago
If Ford was fully liable for any accident in which a driver of a Ford vehicle was found at fault, but this did not apply to any other vehicles, how much more do you think Ford vehicles would cost than all those other vehicles to cover that liability? I expect it would be at least an order of magnitude; being involved in an accident with a Ford vehicle would be a potential lottery-winner (regardless of who was at fault, and that's often muddy). And I think that's true even if from some nonexistent objective observer's POV, the Ford driver was never actually at fault.
2rafa
57m ago
Articles getting longer is a long term thing; read old newspapers from 100 years ago and a lot of news stories for smaller things were the length of tweets today, just very small box paragraphs of text.
Rov_Scam
59m ago
As a products liability lawyer, I can tell you that insurance coverage is a lot more complicated than that. Any hypothetical policy would base the premiums on the number of vehicles sold. If there's a defect that results in injury, only a small percentage of the affected vehicles are going to result in claims, and only a small percentage of the total claims are going to involve huge losses. Huge verdicts only result when the insurance companies are adamant that there is no liability and are looking to get out from under it. Once it's clear there's liability (and often not even then), they'll settle claims at standard rates. You may get a couple of eye popping verdicts but these won't become a normal thing. No Plaintiff's lawyer is going to spend 100k+ taking a contingency case to trial chasing a verdict that's likely to bankrupt the company and leave him and his client waiting 5 years in the unsecured creditor line in a Chapter 11 hoping they can recover a percentage of the original verdict. Better to take the cash now.
That is Anduril's current portfolio, but they were recently one of the companies selected to continue (along with General Atomics, the makers of Predator and Reaper) development of an aircraft for the CCA program, which is most certainly a more traditional defence product. https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/3754980/air-force-exercises-two-collaborative-combat-aircraft-option-awards/
More options
Context Copy link