You say regulation solving problems is unprovable when we have many examples of it doing so, then you claim that without regulation, we would solve things other ways, without any examples of that ever happening, let alone on a large scale. To “pierce the corporate veil both civilly and criminally” is legislation, as laws determine what is criminal. We also had exactly that in the US, where corporations lobbied for reduced regulation, saying that lawsuits would keep them honest through monetary losses. They then immediately went about lobbying to reduce lawsuit liability, cap payouts, and launched a vast PR campaign to paint lawsuits as money grabs by unscrupulous people looking for a payout.
And why wouldn’t a company “whose only product is trust” not be incentivized to sell that trust to the highest bidder? Companies sell out all the time and continue to do good business for a decade or more on customer trust they built up or came with the brand name they bought.
The saying “regulations are written in blood” comes to mind. So where are all the examples of things getting fixed through other means when regulation isn’t written to fix something?
In this day and age, that feels like something that is true in principle but not in reality. For food, the grocery store shelves are almost entirely stocked with brands owned by 10 companies, that have a combined revenue of $375 billion a year [1]. If you have a bad experience with DiGiorno pizza and boycott them, would you know you also needed to boycott Tombstone Pizza, California Pizza Kitchen, Cheerios, Tidy Cat, and on and on. If you wanted to actually boycott Nestle, how difficult would it be to maintain a spreadsheet of the literal thousands of brands they own [2]? Any issue with any brand is just absorbed by a thousand others. Any regional effort is absorbed by their global market. It isn't the USSR, but the idea that consumers can vote with their wallet just isn't the reality we live in anymore.
>30 seconds vs 3-4 minutes on my previous laptop (14" M1 16GB) is a big deal. It was more constrained for memory (swapping) and CPU and just ran a bit slower. Still reasonable. But a 7x improvement is massive for me. Times 10 or so per day adds up to really significant time savings. If you compile stuff, run expensive test suites, or whatever: you could use a fast laptop.
This was in their original comment. So, when you say they are only arguing cost, I really have no idea what you are talking about.
>In the year in which he was born, children of citizen parents born overseas were not citizens at birth
This is completely incorrect and is not what the issue was with his citizenship. John McCain was born in 1936 in the Panama Canal Zone, the area around the Panama Canal that was controlled by the US. The Naturalization Act of 1855 granted birthright citizenship to foreign born children of a US citizen father [1], and was reaffirmed in 1878 [2]. The Equal Nationality Act of 1934 added that a US citizen mother could also confer citizenship to children born abroad [3].
Most interpretations considered The Canal Zone to be foreign territory for citizenship purposes. The issue was in the extremely specific wording of the Acts, which was that children of US parents born “out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States” were granted citizenship. The Canal Zone was outside the limits of the US, but was technically under the jurisdiction of the US. So, depending on how you interpret the Act, children born in The Canal Zone are in a weird no man’s land, where they don’t get citizenship as a result of being born in the US, but also technically aren’t on totally foreign territory, which would give them their parent’s citizenship. In 1937 (a year after McCain’s birth, not three years), Congress passed 50 Stat. 558, explicitly making children born in The Canal Zone to a US citizen parent US citizens [4]. There was no citizenship law 3 years after McCain’s birth, but the Nationality Act of 1940 was four years after, however, its significant change was allowing children born out of wedlock to a US citizen mother to be given citizenship [5].
[1] “persons heretofore born, or hereafter to be born, out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were or shall be at the time of their birth citizens of the United States, shall be deemed and considered and are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States: Provided, however, that the rights of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers never resided in the United States.” extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-10/pdf/STATUTE-1...
[2] “All children heretofore or hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were or may be at the time of their birth citizens thereof, are declared to be citizens of the United States; but the rights of citizenship shall not descend to children whose fathers never resided in the United States.” Original Statutes of 1878
[3] “Any child hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such a child is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States; but the rights of citizenship shall not descend unless the citizen father or citizen mother, as the case may be, has resided in the United States previous to the birth of such child.” 8 FAM 301.5 SECTION 1993, revised statutes of 1878 extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-48/pdf/STATUTE-4...
[4] “any person born in the Canal Zone on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this Act, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States.” extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-50/pdf/STATUTE-5...
[5] “The provisions of section 201, subsections (c), (d), (e), and (g), and section 204, subsections (a) and (b), hereof apply, as of the date of birth, to a child born out of wedlock, provided the paternity is established during minority, by legitimation, or adjudication of a competent court.” 8 U.S.C. 605; 54 Stat. 1139 https://fam.state.gov/fam/08fam/08fam030106.html
Don't we have tens of thousands of hours (hundreds of thousands?) of closed captioned tv shows and movies? How many hours of news broadcasts with transcripts do we have? Maybe I just don't understand what is needed, but it seems like we have a lot of data to work with.
Correct me if I’m wrong but you need more than just closed captions. You need precise timing too. I’d think you’d need the text to line up exactly with the audio so when the voice makes an “A” sound the text it aligns with is “A” as well.
So while having the closed captions saves some of the work, there is probably much more needed to get everything lined up.
But I’m absolutely not an expert at all. In fact this is the first I’ve ever even though about it!
Author here. Speech-to-text is more or less solved, it's easy to automatically get captions including precise timestamps. For training Moshi, Kyutai's audio LLM, my colleagues used whisper-timestamped to transcribe 7 million hours of audio.
I imagine it would be like if there were Rosetta Stones of text, written with a language you could read and a language you couldn't. For your purposes, discarding the text you can't read would be fine and you wouldn't lose anything. But if you were ingesting a bunch into an LLM, the additional text would give the LLM more context and help it make connections and relate words more accurately, even if you never were going to have it output anything in the language you don't understand.
The inaudible sounds add context and additional datapoints on how the audible sounds are related.
This conspiracy theory mindset is so interesting. How looking at that potato quality low-definition picture and thinking "they must be hiding the truth" and not "I am probably not getting a 100% accurate look at those wounds from this garbage image".
Why do you say that? Ansibles use quantum entanglement for communication. If you change a particle’s spin (spin up to spin down for example) the entangled particle also changes. So, the amount of data is a function of both the number of entangled particles and the speed we can flip them. Let’s use a modern CPU’s 64 bit architecture for the number of entangled particles. Using a random baseline experiment [1], we can flip photons back and forth in the 1-100 nanosecond timescale. GBps internet is 8 billion bits per second, which means we would need to be switching 800 bits to get that speed. IBM’s 1,000 plus qbit quantum computer is 22ft by 12ft [2]. So it doesn’t seem unreasonable to have GBps communication speed if the underlying sci-fi entangled communication were real.
That's not how QE works as I understand it. You can observe one entangled particle and know the spin of the other one, but setting the spin of one would simply break the entanglement. It's for receiving information only, not sending.
Of course. We are talking about ansibles, a Sci-Fi communication device from Orson Scott Card's "Ender's Game" book series. They work using quantum entangled particles. In the real world, you can't "send" information between two entangled particles, but I was speculating about how it would work and its hypothetical information throughput.
I was thinking the same but couldn’t organize my thoughts to match up with the linked articles. The quantum computer can deliver new entanglements at whatever rate it wishes as long as they are below the speed of light. I don’t believe we know how to entangle particles at a distance. If you can keep particles
Le Guin’s ansibles were used for low bandwidth communication. Card expanded them to realtime immersive 3D surround. But I think that’s more fantasy than science fiction. But I believe in the later books we find out there’s some other dimension of space where things or people are wired together and that’s how his ansibles function.
It seems like people being able to reproduce at-will would be the problem. Designing a system where people are sterile by default and can only have a child with intervention seems the only way to prevent random population explosions. If some group in your population finds religion and decides to be fruitful, you have a big problem. If 15% of your population has double replacement numbers, you have a 45% increase in your population in two generations.
Google's search is finely tuned to push you into clicking the link of who pays them the most. The search results are excellent quality for their customers. Your mistake is thinking you are the customer.
And why wouldn’t a company “whose only product is trust” not be incentivized to sell that trust to the highest bidder? Companies sell out all the time and continue to do good business for a decade or more on customer trust they built up or came with the brand name they bought.
The saying “regulations are written in blood” comes to mind. So where are all the examples of things getting fixed through other means when regulation isn’t written to fix something?
reply