In that case from what I understand, Adrafinil has a much lower abuse potential than amphetamines, in particular because it doesn't give you a rush. If we're going to name mac apps after pharmaceuticals then this feels a little bit classier. No rush, just steady wakefulness.
I’m curious, what’s an example of a developing situation it detected for you? I ask because after car pooling with a friend in their Tesla a few times I can confidently say I would never trust what Tesla calls FSD. Forget developing situations, there were some close calls with what’s immediately in front of it. Think- about to miss a left turn at 40mph or drive into construction cones that are blocking a lane. I think I’d prefer basic driver assistance over that.
My car doesn't drive itself beyond adaptive cruise, but the brake warning is a little sensitive. It's noticed cases where traffic was coming to a stop before I did.
Okay, I hear you. I do. From a technical viewpoint, that may very well be how their systems are implemented. But this still doesn't answer the question of why the fuck this matters to these states' AGs and the people they represent.
"Its a very common rhetorical technique to argue that the status quo cannot be changed."
Thank you for putting this so eloquently into words. This rigid thinking is also common in topics such as working conditions, collective bargaining, on-call time, parental leave, healthcare, and effectively (unintentionally or not) shuts down conversation.
I've come to realize the objections from people who think this way all effectively boil down to 'Be grateful for what you have because any alternative would be worse.' But if you pry and ask that they expand you'll find there really isn't any there there, because it's black and white thinking. It isn't rooted in fact, it comes from fear. I sure hope we haven't collectively forgot how to even imagine a system that functions better than the one we have today.
Thanks. For me, I was in debate club in High School and that included basic rhetoric. In college I took an argumentation class as a non-engineering elective. The most useful thing this class taught (for me) is how to 'see' the argument, and as a consequence see how it is constructed. Throughout my career it has been especially useful in "political" situations at work. Not everyone argues in good faith, and being able to spot those who are not is valuable.
Whenever I read an extraordinary claim, no matter how implausible, I try to make an effort to at least Google it and steelman it as best I can. I do this as a sanity check and also to catch myself from falling victim to my own echo chambers. Here's what I found:
1. White House officials from the CDC, FBI, and CISA urged platforms to remove or suppress content deemed "misinformation" including "lab-leak theory. [1]
2. Missouri and others sued the Biden admin and requested an injunction for "federal interference" against social media companies.[2] That injunction was granted.[3]
3. The injunction was appealed to the 5th circuit[4]. Notably, while the the 5th circuit upheld the injunction, they didn't agree that the Biden admin was "coercive", which is why their ruling significantly narrowed the scope of the injunction. From that ruling:
"Generally, the State Department officials did not flag content, suggest policy changes, or reciprocally receive data during those meetings."
"...although CISA flagged content for social-media platforms as part of its switchboarding operations, based on this record, its conduct falls on the “attempts to convince,” not “attempts to coerce,” side of the line."
"There is not sufficient evidence that CISA made threats of adverse consequences— explicit or implicit—to the platforms for refusing to act on the content it flagged."
"Nor is there any indication CISA had power over the platforms in any capacity, or that their requests were threatening in tone or manner. Similarly, on this record, their requests— although certainly amounting to a non-trivial level of involvement—do not equate to meaningful control."
-------
You wrote the Biden admin was "forcing" Twitter to censor people but even the 5th Circuit, which was sympathetic to this complaint, disagrees.
Sadly my original assumption was true: this is another false comparison. Trump using or even threatening to use the FCC's licensing authority to revoke licenses of private companies that don't fire a comedian for speech the president found upsetting is not the same.
Now, if the Biden admin used (or threatened) the DOJ's authority to seize Twitter or Facebook's domain name if they don't take down legal, 1st amendment protected content the Biden admin disagrees with i.e. "lab leak", then I might agree with you.
My question to you is - do you agree these things are not the same or do you simply not see a meaningful distinction? Why or why not?
Wikipedia, for example, acknowledges the Administration "coerced or significantly encouraged social media platforms to moderate content, which violated the First Amendment." The Reason article is overwhelmingly negative on the Administration's seeming censorship. That and other details in the articles don't serve your conclusion.
Yeah, re-read the entirety of your first link. Filled with content like this:
> A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit unanimously agreed that the White House, Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the FBI had "coerced" or "significantly encouraged" the platforms, "in violation of the First Amendment," to suppress speech that federal officials viewed as dangerously inaccurate or misleading.
> They argued that the Biden administration's public and private pressure on platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube amounted to government-directed censorship. The 5th Circuit essentially agreed, endorsing much of Doughty's analysis. According to the appeals court, the administration's persistent demands that Facebook et al. do more to control "misinformation"—which were coupled with implicit threats of punishment through heavier regulation, antitrust action, and increased civil liability for user-posted content—crossed the line between permissible government speech and impermissible intrusion on private decisions.
So yeah, please step outside your bubble.
Also, just to re-iterate one more thing, the Biden approach was entirely private. No one knew it was happening. The Trump admin doing this in the public, is most likely just going to get FCC chair burned a lot harder than ABC in the end here. No the Biden admin actually caused years of harm and hid a lot of information from the public.
I'm not American, but I pay a few hundred dollars a year for the premium health insurance plan at my company. I also pay tens of thousands of dollars more in taxes to grant me the ability to wait for 72 hours in an ER hallway whenever I can't wait weeks for an appointment because urgent care isn't a thing.
My take home would triple if I lived in the USA as a new graduate because of things like favourable treatment of stock grants, less income tax, and the fact my salary would double.
I'm sure the $80,000 extra dollars is enough to pay for the healthcare premiums and daycare. My effective hourly rate would be high enough that going from a 72 hour wait to a few hours would be worth the thousands of dollars in ER bills. If I worked for the government or another lower paying profession it would not be good, but I am a well-compensated software engineer.
There's a reason why 90% of Waterloo immediately moves to the United States after graduation.
My apologies. I thought $10/day daycare was universal in Canada. I guess my broader point was the difference in disposable income between U.S. workers vs. other countries becomes a lot more nuanced when things like healthcare, childcare, retirement, and taxes are taken into account.
> I'm sure the $80,000 extra dollars is enough to pay for the healthcare premiums and daycare.
You're probably right. That said, SWE compensation in the U.S. has been quite an anomaly compared to the vast majority of American labor, especially in the last 5-10 years. I don't think those who are comfortable right now are thinking far enough ahead about what they'll do if that changes, or perhaps when that changes. If this AI hype has taught me anything it's that those with capital cannot wait to start trimming their pesky engineers with those high salaries. And maybe that's always been the case, but seeing them go full mask off hits different.
Unrelated, I like your website. It's simple and the color scheme is aesthetically pleasing.
> My apologies. I thought $10/day daycare was universal in Canada.
In my understanding, it exists but it's vaporware and not really accessible.
> That said, SWE compensation in the U.S. has been quite an anomaly compared to the vast majority of American labor, especially in the last 5-10 years.
The discrepancy isn't an anomaly for Canadians in high-income fields, like law, medicine, or finance. As a rule of thumb, the USA pays twice as much but expects more productivity and less stability. I'm entitled to minimum vacation, I can't be fired at will without huge severance packages, I get lengthy parental leave, etc.
> If this AI hype has taught me anything it's that those with capital cannot wait to start trimming their pesky engineers with those high salaries.
This is the goal, but I see the opposite.
The engineers with the capacity to use AI to replace many others are extremely rare at my company since it requires breadth of knowledge to step in when you realize an LLM can't solve a problem itself, reading comprehension to understand the copious amounts of code/English the AI wants you to review, and extreme paranoia because these things lie constantly.
Otherwise, you end up in an AI delusion loop. The AI tells you it is fixing the problem but due to some fundamental misunderstanding it is unable to accomplish the task and lies to you about its ability. This ends when you are sufficiently fooled to approve the code or when you give up.
I think we're seeing signs of this as companies start replacing SaaS products.
> Unrelated, I like your website. It's simple and the color scheme is aesthetically pleasing.
Thank you! I'm attempting a blog with simple interactive components to ensure people use the site instead of summarizing it with AI.
> "I tried to trick an LLM and I did" is not exactly a noteworthy achievement at this stage in AI technology.
I agree it’s not surprising and I would also agree it’s not noteworthy, if the CEO of OpenAI wasn’t still making public statements like this:
People talk about how much energy it takes to train an AI model … But it also takes a lot of energy to train a human. It takes like 20 years of life and all of the food you eat during that time before you *get smart*.
Precisely. In fact I remember a story similar to this, so I Googled "did Sprint get sued for using 'unlimited' in their marketing?" Lo and behold, yes, they did. And for good reason.
It would be an understatement to say I am ashamed to work in the same industry as many of the commenters here do--commenters who are completely ignorant of antitrust law and why it exists, or for whatever reason, are completely unconcerned with the absurd market power these mega conglomerates (ab)use.
reply