Re: Some niggling details missing from that paper
I too call bs. This is like a Bayesian spam filter being trained by a corpus of ED drug spam versus a corpus of ED drug ham, then using it to attempt to detect fake invoice spam.
622 publicly visible posts • joined 21 Jan 2011
Literally millions of people crossed the US-Mexico border illegally in recent years with little to no vetting. If 0.1% were criminals intent on organized crime sprees in the US, then still there are thousands of them. Trump or no Trump, it is not so hard to believe, They're pirates, essentially, who used the influx of refugees as cover for criminal incursions into the US. The very criminals that the refugees were fleeing from followed them in. I would say there are very few US citizens using these, actually, and the spike is likely due to organized crime use.
Without the rules, we have data brokers selling info on any who are willing to give it up in order to use apps of limited usefulness with zero consequences. With the rules, data brokers would have the same consequences for selling info, generally inaccurate info, as credit bureaus, which is to say zero consequences.
Sounds it, unless of course it turns out to be a bogus order. It is really not clear that a district judge can usurp executive powers through injunctions without even making a ruling and without even hearing opposing arguments. Hiring and firing are clearly executive powers granted solely to the president, not to Congress, and certainly not to unelected judges. Obviously, if any EO can be stopped by any district judge, then it will be Republican judges doing the same to the next Democratic president, etc., etc., meaning the more partisan judges are running the country, and God help us all.
I believe the big shove from DOGE is intended to iron out the legalities. There is supposed to be a separation of legislative, executive, and judicial powers. Congress is to make the laws, not execute them or usurp the authority to execute them from the president. One of those executive powers (executive decisions) that Congress is not authorized to make is the staffing of the executive branch agencies, including hiring and sacking federal employees. Congress has, over the past several decades, decided to create "independent" executive branch agencies with directors having employment terms longer than that of a single president and that can only be sacked for cause. So, Congress created executive branch agencies that are not directed by the elected head of the executive branch. Keep in mind that of 2.3 million executive branch personnel, there are exactly 2 who are elected. If neither the president nor Congress (ie. the elected government) is in charge of these agencies, then who is?
Perhaps it is simpler than that. What if even more of the CHIPS Act money can flow to TSMC, etc. by reducing the overhead? We are, after all, talking about government agencies, the most inefficient workforce on the planet. I wonder if anyone will notice, other than the poor sots losing their jobs.
It is true. The malloc() call itself almost never fails. The problem lies not in allocation, but in later use. For example, consider the string.h functions that return a pointer, strcat() and friends. It is the perfect function if you want to implement a buffer overflow. To mitigate the situation, strncat() was created to limit the size of the src buffer, but forces the coder to calculate n such that sizeof(dst) >= strlen(dst) + n + 1. At least strncpy() prevents an endless overwrite should the src string not be nul-terminated, but it lacks the bounds check on dst. As a result, strlcpy() was created to specify the size of the dst buffer in order to prevent the buffer overflow and to guarantee dst is nul-terminated. Yay! Except, it didn't retain strncpy()'s src string length limit, and if src is not nuul-terminated, then a missed terminating null byte might copy the keys to the kingdom into the src string and subsequently publish them on the Internet.
Oh, but the malloc() worked flawlessly.
Like all Chinese companies, the CCP is embedded in their corporate structure. Since the CCP has great influence on all Chinese companies, it is not surprising that they would coerce other Chinese companies into getting semiconductor manufacturing equipment to Huawei by any means necessary.
It's not just the US. China is the largest telecom market in the world, and the PRC severely restricts entrance into that market by Erickson, Samsung, or Nokia. At the same time, the PRC heavily subsidizes Huawei in an effort to undermine other telecom manufacturers and control the market outside of China.
I don't really believe it is the difference in pay, which is insignificant to Meta's bottom line, but rather that they are tethered to Meta by the visa. They can't just go to another company. They either work for Meta or are deported. Zuckerberg likes employees likes to wrap visas around employees' throats and tie them to their desk. The Romans chained slaves to the oars of their ships to enforce a similar loyalty.
Well it is good to be skeptical, as long as you don't harbor a belief that it is impossible. Unlike many things that investors waste their money on that we don't actually know whether or not they are possible, we absolutely know that nuclear fusion is a reality. An AI that will discover new insights into the physical world may or may not be possible, but nuclear fusion is a known possibility. So, it is down to discovering a method that works, and sooner or later someone will discover it. Be skeptical of Helion, not of the possibility of fusion power. A half a century is but a blink of the eye in the timeline of paradigm shift events.
None of those companies have board members appointed by the US government......ByteDance does. The US does not have a law compelling all companies and individuals to collaborate with state intelligence agencies......China does. If those two things happen in future to Microsoft, Adobe, Google, then it would be time for the EU to do something similar.
Demand based inflation isn't caused by people having too much money. It is from people having too much credit. Interest rates are increased with the goal of decreasing inflation by decreasing the buying on credit.
But there is another type of supply-side inflation that is caused by there being too little of a needed commodity. For example, a shortage of diesel causes an increase in the cost of diesel, and so an increase in every commodity that requires diesel to make, ship, or store.This also includes gas used in electricity production, heating of facilities and office buildings, etc. Any shortage of energy supply is a big inflation driver, because it affects the price of everything everything that requires energy to make, ship, or store, which is....everything.
"But when you boil it down, government officials DID ask various platforms not to carry certain third parties speech, they just didn't threaten adverse consequences."
Edit: Append ", or else they made the threat of adverse consequences clear offline so as to maintain plausible deniability."
It should be held as an economic axiom that we get less of what is taxed and more of what is subsidized. For example, if government began paying a subsidy for playing tennis, then many people with no real interest in the sport would begin playing for the money. If they raised the subsidy higher, then even more would play, and if high enough, then everyone who could walk would be playing. The more the subsidy, the more tennis gets played. By contrast, if a tax were levied on playing tennis, then many casual players would stop, felling that it wasn't worth it. If the tax were raised higher, even those who loved the game would no longer be able to afford it, and at some point only the rich and shameless would play. The higher the tax, the less tennis gets played.
Now consider that even with the subsidies, few EVs are being sold, really. How many would be sold if there were no subsidy? What was it Margaret Thatcher said, something about socialists always running out of other people's money?