Which is ridiculous on it's face, imagine claiming that stopping someone's income until you get around to reviewing it doesn't have a significant effect on someone.
The real issue is if uber comes away from this thinking they can do a rubber stamp review, because the point of the law was clearly to stop unjustifiable decisions automatically being made(protecting both parties), as uber will still be on the hook for unjustified suspensions but redress will need to go through the court making it worse for all involved.
Which is what has happened over time now that humanity has the ability to digitize them. The problem arises when we are purposefully picking books where we know those scans aren't yet available and purposefully destroying them. There'd be less outrage if any of these companies made statements about guaranteeing the survival of the scans they are taking and the release or planned guaridanship in the case they can no longer maintain the data.
Who is digitizing the books which are rare? Isn't it even more valuable to digitize for them now that they have new buyer which can pay 100s of times more.
Anna's Archive is a controversial example with that as a stated goal. But more to the point most of the people doing it aren't seeking to profit from digitizing these books so the 'monetary value' of them is not the yard stick or motivator. A higher monetary value could actually make it harder for these projects as they can rely on donations of books or even waiting for someone who wants a book they bought so they can spend that on the next one (which is less useful if the next one on your list was bought to destroy by the same person who bought the book you finished scanning).
They're often books tied to a region, i.e. stories about a local fisherman's life and how they overcame adapting a boat to local feedstock, or the engineering that went into building the local train station. That's to say they can have little value to those outside the area but are still a rich read for locals, tourists, and those who move to the region or have a love for a place. I expect we'll see a concerted effort to organise to get these kind of book sent to regional mueseums for scanning now that people are aware they are actively being destroyed and they realise the timeline isn't how long the book can last.
Engineering considerations in favour of this setup:
The cost of that 30% oil loss is less than engineering/site selection of a system that can be fully drained.
The cost of a more robust system that isn't as damaged by use is higher over it's lifetime assuming the *Emergency* use case than just creating/prospecting replacement damageable reserves if necessary.
If someone wanted a small reserve for 'market stabilizing' short term and repetitive small fill/drains they could build it for a lower cost than making the emergency reserve resilient enough to serve this purpose.
Can't claim these are true in this case but also remember that norms were much more enforced at this time and voter could be expected to punish bad politicians (This was a couple of years after watergate) so expecting political parties to hold short sited/corrupt politicians to account when they were doing something visible may have influenced what they expected to happen to a "get me reelected on lower gas prices damn the consequences politician". So the main concern could easily be the stated 1 or 2 emergency drawdowns in the next century and we'll over engineer it so it can handle 5.
They had basically been planning for this shortfall for ever as a likely outcome of sanctions/blockades during an invasion of Taiwan.
Curtailing imports so much is a smart soft power move in not only does it ingratiate countries that would suffer most from the price spike but it could soften the resolve of Taiwan in showing that one of the largest penalties that would result from the invasion isn't nearly as punishing which in turn makes Taiwan's porcupine strategy less viable.
Along with US own goals like the thoroughly bungled and unplanned invasion, tariffs, corruption (both business crimes and more moral crimes like pedophilia or disregard for following legal process) it's made most of the west rate China above USA in favourability [latest Pew research poll].
Which is a benefit in itself, it adds texture and is inoffensively flavoured (hell on the right day or if I haven't drank enough water yet it can taste great). All without adding many calories to the meal. It's also a much cheaper alternative than ozempic for those of us who don't have the consistent willpower to not treat ourselves to more food when we're hungry even if we know we have all the calories we need.
People are allowed to eat foods that make them happy. It's OK.
And in this context: On a worldly scale of foods that may be useful to demonize, eating some leafy greens like lettuce constitutes approximately nothing.
Why do you choose to behave in the way that you demonstrate? What accomplishments do you wish to achieve here? What sorts of changes might you seek to impart?
You are much more likely to gain weight if you eat biscuits until you feel full versus eating lettuce to feel full. I.e. if you eat the same volume of BLT vs bacon sandwhich without the lettuce and tommato you will have consumed less calories with the one that is less calorie dense.
We've discovered that ambulance drivers are only driving people to hospital for 5% of the week. As such we've cut the 20 staff that used to give 120% coverage to 5. The 4 days of coverage is still more than 8x more than needed to cover working 5% of the week, so obviously we don't expect any deaths on the days we don't have any ambulance drivers working.
In the unlikely event excess ambulance drivers are needed we'll temporarily hire them on an ad hoc basis at double the normal rate. They will obviously happily jump on this opportunity, working less than 5% of the year at double pay is much better for just those hours than being paid 60% of what you'd get as an ambulance driver in another career all year round and actually being able to afford your mortgage.
Or emptying your bottle of water when the TSA found it on the XRAY. Unlike the pepper he's actually allowed to have that data on his phone both sides of the border.
There are several distinct differences, I think the most pertinent one is that you can create seperate instances of the LLM that ingested that media without reingesting the media (i.e. you can copy the LLM but you can't copy a human). Copright law is screwed up for multiple reasons but it makes sense to treat LLM as different than a human consuming the media, especially if the LLM is created for profit (e.g. movie owner selling tickets to a dvd he bought in the store vs a home viewing is treated differently).
I don't understand how the first pertinent one is relevant, when the LLM can't recreate verbatim at length an entire work anyway. It is literally unable to based on information entropy, it is not big enough to contain all of the bits of the training data at maximum theoretical compression.
But if a single person "can't recreate verbatim at length an entire work anyway" why does copyright law treat playing music to guests in your house differently to playing it to a classroom? I'm not saying that copyright law isn't stupid I'm saying that these distinctions make a difference and the fact that you can't copy humans is a pertinent distinction. LLMs would be treated very differently if like humans you had to spend the training costs of each model for each running instance of that model, the fact that models can be copied is a core feature of these models and makes them distinct from showing 'training data' to a human.
VPN is also common in those discussions, it's more setup on the client side but can win on security. Of course there'd be a lot of people in trouble if you couldn't trust tailscale to be better than a beginner selfhoster on security so it's still a good goto option.
The real issue is if uber comes away from this thinking they can do a rubber stamp review, because the point of the law was clearly to stop unjustifiable decisions automatically being made(protecting both parties), as uber will still be on the hook for unjustified suspensions but redress will need to go through the court making it worse for all involved.
reply