I get the point, but I assume the people keeping the museum open at 2 AM for some rich dude are the same people who do exactly that kind of job in normal hours.
In other words, they are asked to do overtime. So, as long as they are getting adequately paid for that overtime and they are not forced to do so (but I assume you can always find at least two people out of 20 who could do that), I don't think it's a big deal.
A great lesson for system design job interviews - if this is a popular payment system in a country with 1.5 billion people, your theoretical system you're designing for a small company cargo culting Google interviews will not likely support millions or even tens of thousands of average TPS.
Well, they are money-moving transactions which means each person only does them a few times per day. If your system's transactions are more like showing the weather on the home screen, it's plausible you could have orders of magnitude more traffic than a payment system.
To add - I agree that payments is great question for systems designs.
Merchants need to receive the money and being able to transact with it. Imagine the merchant receiving the payment is something like Amazon or Ebay (sorry, I don't know what similar large online retailers are in India).
With the above, the problem becomes harder. Imagine receiving 2-3k TPS just on one account during a black Friday or similar day.
Now your system has to perform fine for accounts that do 30 transactions an hour for a retail customer and 3k a second for a merchant.
>“Anonymization is hard, and you’ve got to have the right technical experts at the table to come up with the solutions,” Adkins told Wired.
So Google, with hundreds if not thousands of security engineers, basically infinite budget, more than 500 published papers on security and privacy, multiple security teams, including one (Project Zero) that has discovered at least 2,000 vulnerabilities in the last 10 years, and with actual experience in privacy applied to its many apps and solutions... is unable to anonymize data when required to avoid a lock-in?
Well at least Anduril refers to a sword used by the “good guys” so, industrialization aside, it is a somewhat reasonable name for a US defense company.
Palantir really doesn’t make sense. It’s like developing a bulletproof vest and naming it Horcrux… sure, in the HP world a Horcrux does protect you from death, but it is very associated to evil, so no one who is really fan of the saga would choose that name, especially for a publicly known product.
Then again maybe they just asked an LLM “I have a surveillance solution. I want to name it after a fantasy concept. Any ideas?”
Also, a gravity-like model makes even more sense in ancient times which were really constrained by distances, unlike modern economies for which this is more true for goods than services (although there are gravity effects for services, too). In a 100% goods economy, with information itself traveling at the speed of a man or a horse, everything becomes gravity-like.
Maybe it's just me but this post is written in a confusing way.
I think the argument here is:
- laws are slow
- innovation is faster
- if you let laws regulate AI you're basically playing catch up
- therefore, let technology regulate AI in real time: once a decision is made, it is immediately valid.
From an efficiency standpoint this may make sense, but the important question is: who makes the decisions that are then implemented in software?
AI platforms are generally provided by private operators, so there are two actors here: the State and the AI provider.
Assume the State decide to completely deregulate AI.
Let's take deepfakes.
As long as an AI provider makes money out of deepfakes, and they do not fear sanctions (remember, there is no government regulation), why would they ban them? Reputation risks? Well, there are many AI providers, so as long as they can produce deepfakes that cannot be traced to a specific AI platform, why bother?
It's one thing to say that laws are slow, quite another to say that democratic accountability and general concerns other than making money should be thrown out of the window in favor of fast but obscure processes.
In other words, they are asked to do overtime. So, as long as they are getting adequately paid for that overtime and they are not forced to do so (but I assume you can always find at least two people out of 20 who could do that), I don't think it's a big deal.