recursive4

Hindsight bias is strong with this one.

If somebody has already proposed this, I apologize for non-dfs.

Plausibly there is a disagreement about the release of GPT-5. One side may believe it is competitively necessary (given Google’s impending release), countered by a concern regarding the model’s safety and lapses due to prematurity.

If we are to believe next-gen models are 10x as capable and natively multi-modal, their release is a precipice, and a winner-take-all vs. nth-order-risk debate may warrant decapitation.

My understanding is that this is an example of last mile costs increasing non-linearly i.e. Google has something like 95% of the mobile search market and profits $30b from it, and the cost to acquire that last 5% is >$30b.

What's the latest on automation within ghost kitchens?

It would be a shame to lose Lapham's in print. It embodies the idea that keeping a library is to maintain the breadth and depth of human knowledge as desired at a moment's notice.

Can you elaborate? Would love to hear more.

You wait patiently and accept humans are not and will never be perfect FIFO queues.

Is anyone here confident this absolutely isn’t a simulated prompt?

So fraud is consistent with respect to time?

Contains false negatives, for example only listing a single police department using Clearview (https://atlasofsurveillance.org/search?vendor=Clearview). Likely a limitation of the current data sources.

Creative but ultimately a dog whistle. "What are the limit of MacOS GUI?" shouldn't be novel.

Two days ago I was running on a road that lacks sidewalks and was almost hit by a driver who was clearly texting and not paying attention. This is not tyranny for the good of its victims – it's protecting everyone else from a needless lack of care for the safety of others.

Pick one and hire for it.

Misleading title.

Deaccession is controversial and often legally gray due to stipulations by donors that work is never to be sold.

If you're interested, see https://news.artnet.com/art-world/brauer-museum-controversia... for a recent example.

I'm not sure how you're arriving at the implicit whitelist statement. Can you link to section in the proposal that supports this conclusion?

I'm still coming to the opposite conclusion: For example, as a web admin, it would be useful to me to block requests that forge the User Agent. In your mind, is this a white or black list?

1. Running a particular set of software _correctly_ i.e. the positive filter is positive insofar as the negative filter is negative. This logic applies to anti-virus if you predicate it's negative filtering on a positive filter that the problem itself hasn't been backdoored (which we arguably do as part of our intuitive trust model).

I disagree with your characterization of metal detectors defining success on approval. Consider the practical difficulty of defining a whitelist of every possible piece of "approved clothing" compared to a blacklist of known knowns (e.g. guns, knives, poison, etc.).

2. I think we're in agreement that who is permitted as a legitimate attestor is a core issue. I wouldn't ultimately conclude that it must be Google, although many web admins would be satisfied with that.

You should be as comfortable running the (proposed) attestator on your machine as you are running anti-virus software. In thinking about it relative to anti-virus, I came across an insight:

The Web Environment Integrity proposal isn't much different than requiring that, in order to receive an email, the sender both secures their machine with anti-virus and provides proof to you, the receiver, that the message in question is virus-free. Otherwise, without this proof, you won't accept the message.

Metal detectors and the requirement to pass through one to enter certain, defined spaces are probably the physical analogy that people are most familiar with.

Upvote if you actually read the proposal in question.

Reminds me of https://www.documentjournal.com/2021/01/the-internet-didnt-k...

The author would enjoy Atlas Shrugged lest he move intellectually closer to his purported libertarians.

A perhaps more interesting (and less controversial) variation on this question is "could blockchain usage catalyze financially sustainable and scalable Open Publishing models".

Some lessons require pain in order to be learned; the difference between investing and speculating is one of them.

In parallel, there are communities of builders working on the post-jpeg future. Check out https://partialcommonownership.com, for example.

Affording a house in which geographic market?

Good questions. Are they going to lose business because of lower throughput?

Ultimately the nature of codifying altruism in the law is that someone must sacrifice for someone else; the sacrificer and as well as the recipient of the sacrifice are subject to an Overton window.

I share the objectivist standpoint that, as long as wealth is accrued through fair transactions, having occurred without coercion (including monopoly influence) and because parties provided equitable value to each other, it (and its distribution to heirs over time) is ethically acceptable.

This is a straw-man description of the ethics of Pareto efficiency. Even as such, if the second person has nothing the first person desires, what obligation does the first have to share their bread? Why can't the second person make bread or an alternative? Are they unable to, and if so, are they strictly a burden on the first person?

This is my personal opinion.

If society decides that a sacrifice should be made in favor of a disabled Uber customer, society should incur that cost and compensate the Uber driver the market rate for their time.

Wait fees, in this case, are not being used (in the abstract) to discriminate because there is an time cost inherent in this business model that somebody needs to inur.

Respectfully, I don't think we can say axiomatically that welfare is enhanced in the aggregate by Uber stakeholders ({drivers|employees|shareholders}) sacrificing in favor of the disabled because the Nth degree ethical consequences are unknowable.

A few thoughts come to mind:

- How should a person with disabilities indicate that they have a disability requiring extra time in a fraud proof manner?

- Should all disabilities be treated equally?

- Who decides how much time should be granter per?

- Should this same policy apply to people with ephemeral injuries?

- Should Uber compensate the driver for this extra time to ensure the driver is still incentivized to pick up people with disabilities?

- Why, ethically, should this cost fall on Uber instead of the driver? Either way an inefficient market is being created here because the government is stepping in and saying that a transaction made between two rational actors is unfair even if those parties agree to the terms of the transaction (unless Uber is a monopoly). If the driver is not compensated fairly for their time, why is this sacrifice ethically permissible?