HNHacker News
TopNewBestAskShowJobs

FiniteField

108 karma · joined August 25, 2022

submissionscomments
FiniteField··on Britain's got some of Europe's toughest surveillance laws. Now it wants more
>What is interesting in the UK is that it seems largely to be people voting against their own interests a lot of the time.

Without meaning this as a comment towards your post in particular, I've found that people who say "they're voting against their own interests" tend to project their own solidly middle-class interests (access to abundant, cheap labour, better deals on fees to go to university, etc - completely valid self-interests to have!) onto working-class people who may be unaffected or even harmed by those interests (competing with that same labour pool for work, being outbid for housing from the rest of the population, being unable to afford to have a child).

What this also misses is that people have self-interests besides straightforward economic metrics. Is it not a valid self interest for someone to want their home town to maintain a sense of local identity? For a community to not change beyond recognisability in a single lifetime? For a person to not feel like a foreigner in the only place they've ever been able to call home?

These concerns aren't as strongly felt by the more well-to-do people, since they have the means to live a more cosmopolitan, travelled lifestyle, and give their lives "higher" aspirations and meaning, like academia, or activism. But for poorer people, their home, and local identity and sense of community, is all they have. Like you said, there's little sense of collectivism in the UK, and is it any wonder why when whole communities have been either displaced by market forces, or replaced demographically, in less than a single generation?

FiniteField··on Britain's got some of Europe's toughest surveillance laws. Now it wants more
>People would rather lurch even further right for answers

God forbid we have an even more "far right" government than the one that has overseen a full decade of all-time-high immigration, has utterly failed to stop the years-long exponential increase in illegal boat border crossings, has swept under the rug the revelations of rape gangs operating in towns and cities all throughout England, has rolled out the red carpet for agitative gender and race activist groups to take root in every institution from museums to universities to primary schools to the civil service, ....

FiniteField··on Fracking for Europe [video]
Not to mention that the phrase has existed for over 100 years, which is quite a long "late stage" for an economic system that's arguably only a few hundred years old. It's used in conversations like religious doomsday predictions, to conjure up the idea that the collapse of capitalism (and subsequent revolution) is coming Any Day Now.

It wears especially thin when people use the phrase to imply that companies overlooking the environment in the following of money is a brand new thing.

FiniteField··on Fracking for Europe [video]
This is the same argument that communists use all the time

"Socialism/Communism is great and we should all live under that system as it is self-evidently the best"

"Well, there were some pretty bad aspects of the USSR and communist China, maybe we should take heed of those."

"Actually, I now choose to define communism as a perfect, not-yet-realised ideal. Any criticism you have of the closest existing system is actually a criticism of State Capitalism and not applicable to real communism."

---

"Capitalism is great and we should all live under that system as it is self-evidently the best"

"Well, there are some pretty bad aspects of the capitalist systems, maybe we should take heed of those."

"Actually, I now choose to define capitalism as a perfect, not-yet-realised ideal. Any criticism you have of the closest existing system is actually a criticism of Corporatism and not applicable to real capitalism."

FiniteField··on What was behind Microsoft's layoffs of over 20k people in the last year?
> I love these conspiracy theory level claims that groups like the ADL are massive power brokers with far reaching influence that can just dictate the advertising spend of multi-billion dollar companies without warrant.

The country of Iceland dropped plans to ban male circumcision after the ADL not-so-subtly threatened to, ironically, defame the country and tank its tourism industry https://grapevine.is/news/2018/03/22/american-anti-defamatio...

FiniteField··on U.K. rejoins Horizon Europe research funding scheme
How can you say it's not? Money is fungible.
FiniteField··on U.K. rejoins Horizon Europe research funding scheme
It sounds like most of what you've listed, especially immigration reductions, are in the general sense things that the government now has the power to change, it just chooses not to. I'd put complaints about post-brexit policies at the government's feet rather than the leave campaign. That's not to say that prominent leave campaigners didn't mislead people with certain statements, but I also remember the Cameron-Osborne remain campaign saying that merely voting to leave would instantly plunge the country into a huge recession. People like Nick Clegg also dismissed and scoffed at (IMO) legitimate concerns from the leave side, like saying that the prospect of an EU army was a conspiracy theory, when in fact there have since been lots of higher-ups in the EU pushing for this.
FiniteField··on U.K. rejoins Horizon Europe research funding scheme
Did that not happen? [0] shows an increase of £47bn on the department of health and social care from 2019-2020 and 2020-2021. That's £900m/week. If you compare to post-covid years then it's more like an increase of £28b or £540m/week. From the article linked in your comment, it seems to make a overly large "smoking gun" out of the fact that a referendum campaign website changed their website to reflect the fact that the referendum was now over.

[0] https://www.bma.org.uk/advice-and-support/nhs-delivery-and-w...

FiniteField··on U.K. rejoins Horizon Europe research funding scheme
Which was entirely fair considering that extremely significant, costly parts of the EU structure and policies are essentially special conditions to other countries. The Common Agricultural Policy was/is basically a free fund of N billion EUR/year to France.

It all goes back to the fact that the entire EU has grown out of what was ultimately a deal between France and Germany, which has always left the UK out as the other one of Europe's big 3 countries. In fact France even blocked the UK from joining at all in the first place.

FiniteField··on U.K. rejoins Horizon Europe research funding scheme
The house of lords had major reform at the start of Labour's last stint in government to remove hereditary peers. It's not impossible to go further, in fact I'd put it at about the same likelihood as reforming the EU structure in the medium to long term.

Besides, short of violent revolution there's nothing the UK population can immediately do about the HoL. The Brexit vote was something that the people could directly do to at least de-abstract power and bring it closer to home. This was one of the most-advertised perks of the EU by the remain campaign: It's not the same as a nation superstate because you're able to voluntarily leave. Brexit was just the UK population exercising that right.

The other point is that the Lords really doesn't have that much power when all's said and done. Yes, they can quibble and send bills back for review a few times, but they're nothing like the US senate for example, the commons have the final say over everyone else. Compare to the EU commission, who have much more power, and actually make the laws.

FiniteField··on U.K. rejoins Horizon Europe research funding scheme
"Might makes right", the last word in every argument on the EU.
FiniteField··on U.K. rejoins Horizon Europe research funding scheme
>If you break a friendship in a painful way

Given the argument for undoing Brexit is that the EU is "just a trade agreement" and not worthy of any discussions on democracy and sovereignty, I'm always surprised that so many Europeans, even high-level politicians, seem to have taken the decision to leave in such an incredibly personal way. Even the leave campaign itself was squarely against the EU as an institution, not a judgment on the EU member states and the people who make them up.

FiniteField··on U.K. rejoins Horizon Europe research funding scheme
Having to pretend GB and NI are different countries seems like the inevitable outcome of the Good Friday Agreement (or at least one interpretation of it) that requires you to pretend that parts of two different countries (NI and IE) are the same country. That was obviously not going to last indefinitely as long as the two places are ruled by different sovereign states (in this case, the UK and EU).
FiniteField··on U.K. rejoins Horizon Europe research funding scheme
Yes, and maybe after that we can create a new supranational government that has fundamental authority over our own government, is free to write laws for us, can overrule our courts, removes all sovereignty over immigration, has a parliament with many degrees of democratic separation from the electorate, has an unelected commission that makes all the laws, has ever-expanding centralisation of power written into its constitution, forces us to accept fleets of bottom-trawling fishing boats to decimate our waters, forces us to spend huge amounts of money to literally incentivise farmers to destroy natural habitat-

-wait why are you running away? This is exactly the same thing as a trade deal!

FiniteField··on U.K. rejoins Horizon Europe research funding scheme
>This whole brexit thing happened by ignoring researchers and listening to whoever spoke louder :)

When it goes the way someone wants they call that "democracy" ;)

FiniteField··on AI model weight providers should not police uses, no matter how awful they are
No, that's not "what I'm going for", because I'm talking about using a thing that I own, within the law. I'm not advocating for abolishing all laws that make "using a thing in a certain way" illegal, I'm saying that we shouldn't bestow corporations the right of legal prosecution against anyone they believe is using a product that they own "unacceptably". Just as I don't want a hammer to come with a terms-of-usage agreement, I don't want a hammer company to be held liable for crimes committed with one of their hammers.

Obviously all simple axioms have a breaking point (if a hammer company sold someone a hammer for the express purpose of murdering somebody with it) but under any reasonable applications I think these hold up absolutely fine and are much better than the axioms we have now.

FiniteField··on AI model weight providers should not police uses, no matter how awful they are
I think if anything it's the other way. For the Chinese system and other "traditional authoritarian" regimes in which power flows from the top down fairly straightforwardly, LLMs are just another form of speech that is pretty openly cracked down on. The West's "crown jewel" is its democracy, in which power supposedly flows up from the consensus of the people, and cheap AI bots have the possibility of tipping the scales of consensus.

That's the idealistic view anyway. A more cynical one might be that in the West, the flow of power from the top down is obfuscated by filtering it through the media and other institutions, who manufacture public consensus, and LLMs are liable to disrupt this system in a way those in power can't predict right now.

FiniteField··on AI model weight providers should not police uses, no matter how awful they are
I touched on this in a cousin comment, but freedom 0 of the GPL states categorically that the user has:

>The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose

Redistributing modified versions of the software it what is regulated under the GPL and other copyleft licences. Even then, the main aim of this restriction is to subvert the system of copyright which works in the opposite way (and unlike copyleft, is not just an academic concern, being constantly wielded by people and companies as a weapon against free speech).

FiniteField··on AI model weight providers should not police uses, no matter how awful they are
This simple "no you" reframing of the user being entitled misses that the two situations are totally asymmetric.

1. A user is "entitled" to use a product how they see fit without being harassed

2. A maker is "entitled" to wield the power of the state to go after and (potentially) cause the fining and even imprisonment of a user who is using it "the wrong way".

You might say that copyleft software licensing (which I agree with) is aligned with point 2, but I'd respond with the fact that copyleft primarily exists to subvert the system of copyright (point 2) from within, as it pertains to software. Even then, copyleft only restricts people who want to redistribute modified versions of the software, and explicitly not normal users.

FiniteField··on AI model weight providers should not police uses, no matter how awful they are
"Responsible censorship" is a good term, and I think it started in earnest after Trump won the 2016 election.

Right across the board, all kinds of institutions made the conscious decision that the basic principles of free speech, impartiality, and the "marketplace of ideas" came a distant second to ensuring that "the wrong people" (which I've worded vaguely as it may be different things to different people) do not come close to any of the levers of power again.

This is how we ended up with formerly-reputable news organisations pushing blatant agendas, the utter demonisation of people hesitant about the draconian COVID measures, and how every layer of internet stack infrastructure, from DDoS protection to the biggest tier-1 ISP, have started actively working to deplatform websites that host offensive but legal speech.

FiniteField··on AI model weight providers should not police uses, no matter how awful they are
It's another "bandwagon" title after that EFF article
FiniteField··on AI model weight providers should not police uses, no matter how awful they are
>Asking builders to ONLY use maximally permissive licenses is equivalent to telling people never to release anything they're not ok with being used in every possible way.

That's exactly right, and it shouldn't be their call how someone uses their thing. When I acquire a hammer, I don't have to sign an agreement that it will never be used to build a wall, and the world is better for this. Just because you have an idea, you shouldn't be granted the legal power to send the police after people who use your idea "the wrong way". To me, this goes just as much for copyright as it does for this new trend of "ethical" licences.

>On a practical level this would massively chill research, as most builders and engineers I know give significant consideration to the impact of their work

Good? People who develop things that can be used for harm and then act entitled to be the arbiter of what that "harm" is are just kidding themselves into trying to have their cake and eat it too. For the things that cause real harm, the actors that are going to cause the most harm (nation states) aren't going to listen to what you have to say no matter what (a recent film comes to mind).

FiniteField··on Dirty downside of 'return to office'; ending WFH could make climate crisis worse
To add onto this comment, saying "having children is the worst thing for the climate" is a totally defeatist attitude towards the issue. What people are saying is "human life is incompatible with the Earth so we should stop perpetuating it". We might as well count our living selves alongside hypothetical future children and all kill ourselves now if that's the case. Of course, the people espousing this message are pretty much exclusively talking to western/European people, who are in almost all cases already giving birth at far below-replacement levels.
FiniteField··on Bob Lee, former CTO of Square, has died after being stabbed in San Francisco
>So, by process of elimination, are you are saying that Pakistanis and Bengalis are a major source of problems?

Yes. Sorry but while it's unpleasant to say, that's just indisputable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rochdale_child_sex_abuse_ring

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotherham_child_sexual_exploit...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telford_child_sexual_exploitat...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_child_sex_abuse_ring

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peterborough_sex_abuse_case

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newcastle_sex_abuse_ring

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keighley_child_sex_abuse_ring

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huddersfield_grooming_gang

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halifax_child_sex_abuse_ring

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derby_child_sex_abuse_ring

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol_child_sex_abuse_ring

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banbury_child_sex_abuse_ring

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aylesbury_child_sex_abuse_ring

Towns all over England have seen thousands of young girls be systematically raped while the police, councils and MPs have almost all turned a deliberate blind eye. Spurred on by the same misplaced sense of righteousness and/or guilt that presumably led you to write your comment full of obfuscation and finger-pointing, rather than sitting down like grownups and having a discussion that acknowledges the serious problems that have been caused by the UK's immigration policy that has resulted in whole parts of towns and cities being replaced by a foreign culture, instead of dispersing and integrating people carefully into the country. This is to say nothing of terrorist attacks, widespread intimidation against non-muslim practices, ethnic ghettos, parallel court systems, hymen inspection clinics, massive over-representation of genetic disorders due to traditions of inbreeding, etc.

FiniteField··on The AI-powered Seinfeld spoof returns to Twitch with new guardrails in place
The difference, though, is that to humans, all these "unspeakable" things aren't really categorically unspeakable, which is obvious from the fact that they haven't been completely forgotten to history. Almost every time an AI chatbot is made, it picks up on these utterances just like other humans, but then these areas of its "brain" are then quickly neutralised by its owners. We've seen this multiple times with chatGPT having "exploits" that enable it to say bad words that are subsequently "patched" out, to the point where it now tells the user that using a certain word would be unacceptable even if it would avoid billions of people being vaporised in nuclear apocalypse https://twitter.com/aaronsibarium/status/1622425697812627457
FiniteField··on The AI-powered Seinfeld spoof returns to Twitch with new guardrails in place
This exact thought experiment has already been taken to its logical conclusion with the below licence [NSFW]. It's kind of genius in its own dark way, definitely an interesting example of modern-day subversion of the governing system.

https://web.archive.org/web/20220426033841/https://plusn_gge... (substitute underscore as appropriate)

FiniteField··on Researchers find ‘significant rates’ of sinking ground in Houston suburbs
Sounds like Agent Smith needs a trip to Australia and New Zealand.
FiniteField··on The IT Crowd US Pilot (2007) [video]
That film always seems like 2 films interleaved into 1 to me. Most of the British cast are great, and really capture the style and humour of the book - Stephen Fry as the narrator, Martin Freeman as Arthur Dent, Alan Rickman as Marvin, even (IIRC) Bill Bailey as The Whale. Then you have the American-cast characters and their writing, and it's just so cliche and dull. It feels like they split production of the film up by character and handed it off to two separate companies, one British and one American.
FiniteField··on Cloudflare stood up to a patent troll and won (2019)
In this case though, the current "cyber mob", as you might call it, is agitating for a famously editorially neutral company (that simply provides a service to other websites) to become strictly partial based on what is essentially politics under the guise of an anti-harassment campaign. This is a hair's breadth away from demanding that the electric, water, and gas utilities suspend service from problematic but law-abiding individuals and companies. The claim is that private companies should be able to freely choose whether to "publish" another person's views, but the underlying intent is blatantly to bully all the right "dependency" companies such that it is absolutely impossible to operate a law abiding website unless it enforces the correct politics.

In other words:

- "Just make your own subreddit/group chat/etc"

- "Just find another website to speak your views on"

- "Just make your own website if you want free speech"

- "Just run your own hosting company"

- "Just run your own DNS registrar"

- "Just build your own datacentre"

- "Just run your own worldwide DDoS protection" (<-- You are here)

- "Just run your own Internet backbone if you want infrastructure companies to peer with you"

- "Just create your own Internet"

FiniteField··on Cloudflare stood up to a patent troll and won (2019)
>the terrorist who killed worshippers at the mosques in New Zealand posted on Kiwi Farms before the attacks.

That's not hyperbole, it's simply not true. The shooter posted on 8chan, not Kiwi Farms. You're thinking of a completely different (defunct) website.

Even if true, to take just one of very many examples, if I remember correctly the terrorist that mowed down a parade in Waukesha had a long history of posting violent black-supremacist content to facebook. Are all facebook users "literally terrorists"?

← PreviousPage 2 of 3Next →