"we care about the masses and ..." - why? why now? what changed?
I'm a bit afraid that the actual reasons are economic, they may be realizing the hole they've dug themselves in with their massive investments with a recession that seems to be brought on by their tech....
To be fair, all of these 4 figures have warned of the danger of AI since before most people thought GPT3 level intelligence was possible.
I can believe they have economic incentives too. Although, if they do succeed in regulating themselves, won't that do more damage to their aggressive funding requirements? It will guarantee the delay (and possible banning) of the promised AGI that justifies the valuations.
> Although, if they do succeed in regulating themselves, won't that do more damage to their aggressive funding requirements? It will guarantee the delay (and possible banning) of the promised AGI that justifies the valuations.
If their statement is to be believed and they truly slow down, that means they are afraid of something. Otherwise some of them would just betray the rest.
If that is the case, then... why? what are they afraid of?
I would wager that failure, having their companies go bankrupt might be it.
How that would happen, I have no clue... I would assume interest rates raised because we're out of options dealing with inflation would hit their ability to raise money and once that happens they're in trouble...
They are banking on spinning their flywheel internally for as long as possible to build the next gen of models without worrying about distillation attacks.
That is assuming opensource models won't catch up to them in the mean time.
Good. Apple would be forced to give competitors the same access they give Siri.
Aparently that means: "give any AI system nearly unlimited access to a user’s device, as well as the ability to act on that access autonomously without a user’s ongoing visibility and control. That includes the ability to read and send messages, make purchases, access files, and execute actions across any app. Security researchers have already shown that AI systems can be hijacked to steal personal data — like passwords and photos — and to permanently alter files and account settings without a user’s consent. "
So... Siri can already do all that... how come Apple isn't concerned about that?
Perhaps a better approach is to allow users to control what AI agents can do including Siri and give all the same access through the same controls.
You could share things easily, sure, but anyone could get hacked pretty easily and very targetted.
After NAT, sharing was still easy lots of 'piracy' apps, various messengers with NAT passthrough
Both before and after you needed to be technical, you can't ask someone that doesnt know about computers to set up an FTP server, and if they did it would be a nightmare and they'd likely share their whole drive
Same goes for anything else.
Anyway, we'll get the whole non-nat with IPv6, let's see what that brings
It brings the requirement for a firewall on every endpoint with a unique address. My Phone often has an ipv6 address (found out this holiday wen I couldn't resolve one of sites because of an orphan ipv6 entry nobody noticed), and has little problems. Perhaps there is also "firewalling" on the router and the phone can't even have incoming connections. Not sure. In any case, the phone seems to do fine.
> Perhaps there is also "firewalling" on the router and the phone can't even have incoming connections. Not sure.
Correct. Every home wifi router worth its salt will firewall incoming connections by default, whether v4 or v6. It's then possible (unless it's some shitty ISP-provided locked down device) to add specific allow rules, or allow all for a particular client.
egress is typically wide open, although sometimes they lock down particular protocols by default (eg. smtp, bittorrent)
And even if it wins, it won't matter much, since it is only one of many issues with the current Internet that prevents people from connecting to each other. Even with IPv6 you'd still have no way to find the other person and the moment they hop between networks, their IPv6 address won't stay the same either.
Ultimately I think none of this will be solved at the low level, it needs something like Iroh or libp2p where you build a new network on top of the Internet infrastructure, so that you can have things like persistent cryptographic identities and addresses that you can carry with you, largely independent of the underlying network architecture.
I absolutely plan to NAT my home, I don't see a good reason to do otherwise.
I don't see a reason why my machine addresses should change over time... then again, most shouldn't have direct internet access anyway, a http proxy on firewall should be enough.
> I don't see a reason why my machine addresses should change over time
You can still use fixed addresses locally if you want, its not like IPv6 is forcing you to use the prefix assigned if you just want to communicate locally over never-changing addresses.
You can have your computers be fd01::1, fd01::2, fd01::3, etc, and talk to everything on their local addresses when wanting to stay local. And then when they want to talk on the public internet they can just use whatever public addresses like 2600:1700:53c2:2573:4c:c001:dead:beef based on whatever prefix your ISP gives you.
Its not like your devices have to only have a single IP address.
Source address selection still favors GUA over ULA by default in every major operating system… If you run both you’re almost certainly going to see a lot of GUA addresses in logs where you only allow LAN traffic. Especially if you’re using mDNS/.local for your hostnames. The only way to be sure your internal stuff only ever uses ULA’s is to not give them GUA’s, and now you’re doing NAT.
(I don’t personally run my network as ULA-only, I do ULA+GUA as you describe, but I had to basically give up on being able to reliably tie traffic logs to a known source… hosts in my LAN always seem to use a GUA to talk to each other when discovering over mDNS, which of course means they use privacy addresses by default. My ULA uses DHCP so that I can get stable addresses and know who is who, but it’s useless when things just decide to use the GUA anyway.)
Many countries including European now have just scan a QR code. The EU payment scheme Wero is bringing that cross-border for EUR. Instant and very low fees.
I don't use Wero, yet, but I'm not really convinced when I read about it. Firstly, it lets anyone lookup the name associated with a phone number or email address, which is a privacy nightmare. Secondly, only a single bank account can be used with a phone number or email. This just seems badly designed.
... which boils down to 0 fees on any side for any transaction I've ever done, across quite a few countries in EU and to/from Switzerland. I don't think any sane retail bank dares to charge anything, people would migrate to competition in an instant.
Not by default. Deutsche Bank for instance makes you select it and I'm guessing most people are afraid that choosing instant means a fee so they leave it off.
There was another European payment system change to remove* the fees for real-time (official name) transfers, roughly a year ago. Together with the removal of international fees 10? years ago, it is indeed instant (if you check the box) and free across the EU now.
IIRC, real-time transfers commonly used to cost 50 cents (flat).
* Technically, they aren't allowed to cost more than regular transfers which cost 0 in ~all retail accounts
> In europe you just send money to their IBAN or they send you a link
You can, but at least in Germany people are reluctant to give their IBAN to others and prefer one degree of separation, so PayPal is still very common for transfers between friends.
My wife recently filled out a SEPA-Lastschriftmandat for an account in my name and all she needed was my name, IBAN address and a signature. Name and Address is semi-public and signatures can be faked. I'm no financial criminal but I would be shocked if there was no attack vector that gets enabled from knowing an IBAN and a name.
The thing is, burden of proof is with the bank. For a lastschrift, you have 8 weeks to reverse it, if you didn't actually sign the Ermächtigung, you have 13 months.
Unless you don't care what transfers happen, that's pretty much always enough time
It takes ~2 weeks to resolve and will cost you tens of Euros. The biggest threat is that they won't want to deal with you anymore, at least for a while. Happened to a flatmate of mine 15ish years ago.
I am not worried about the money staying gone forever and I have ample cash reserves, but I can imagine that someone who might have to worry about a bouncing rent wire or electricity bill would be more worried about their safety cushion potentially being gone until they get it fixed with their bank.
Justified fear. A former flat mate of mine reported an unexpected outgoing transfer to his UK bank and they blocked his account for 3 months. He was essentially unbanked. He had to pay his rent in cash after getting it from an ATM with a credit card (which cost a lot extra and hit limits). Resolving it took months even though we lived right next to a branch of that bank, where he went every day.
The issue is more "I checked my account yesterday, I have 600€ on there, so I know the 150€ utilities bill due today is not an issue" and then a weird withdrawal happens and all of a sudden the utilities payment bounces. Even if i get the money back instantly once I notice it theres still the issue that now I have to deal with a bounced payment to a utilities provider.
But again, I am not talking about myself, im talking about the hyptothetical person who might not be the perfect customer. My in-laws have had their gas cut more than once because of non-payments, or were only allowed to keep the gas running because they told them "we will wire you the last 3 unpaid invoices at once on day x".
For me to personally end up in this situation the bank would need to somehow SEPA out like 2 years worth of mortgages at once in a short timeframe, which is not a realistic scenario.
If you have an app, you'll notice immediately that a payment bounced, via notification. If not, you'll get a letter informing you that it bounced.
Also: it takes A LOT of letters and court orders for them to cut your utilities. I'm not joking, it's more than a couple of Mahnungs, then it goes to debt collection, then it goes to court. The court will then take the money out of your account.
That's all before power gets cut.
It definitely won't be because of a single missed payment.
Even in the situation above: if your in-laws somehow had no balance "at once on day x" because of a fake SEPA, they would be able to reverse via app, or go to the bank and reverse.
Paypal (as an example) only asks for the name and IBAN and they do identity verification themselves, by depositing (!) a small amount of money on your account.
But yeah, it's a very high-trust society. Of course any charge can be reverted via your bank app in seconds. But it's still a nuisance to have to check, so people are wary of giving it away.
It's not high trust society. In Germany service providers have easy and instant access to your bank account. Like TSA to your body on American airports. They absolutely don't trust that someone will voluntarily make monthly bank transfer, so I'd call it zero-trust system.
Telecoms, kinda. They will try to force this on you via contract. You can say no, but they will lie to your face that it's impossible. You can always get a pre-paid, too. I witnessed the same situation (forced by contract) in some Gyms as well.
Vatenfall and other electric companies, the government itself, banks, landlords, Hausverwaltung, all are surprisingly chill about which payment method you use.
But then again, Telecoms and Gyms are always trying to cheat and steal from you in every country that I lived, that I'd call this the exception to the rule.
The IBAN is also used for paying online by debit note. So somebody who knows your IBAN can theoretically buy stuff using your bank account. You can easily reclaim that money, but still there is hassle involved.
In the early days of eBay I exchanged money exclusively via bank transfer and had no worries, but for me the Internet has changed and these days I use PayPal to send and receive money from strangers. I see it like this: My email address is already public, so I'm not risking anything when I share it with strangers. My IBAN on the other hand is only known to a few respectable companies, so why change that? Seeing all the online platforms store all your PII without hesitation, but keeping your IBAN only as ****** and handing it straight to a trusted payment processor always reminds me that it's not like the others. Yes, I know businesses put their IBAN on their letter head, but they also have accountants watching their transactions.
Because it's a convenient lower tech solution where you don't need to be a merchant with access to the debit card system to get monthly (or one-off) money, and it's easy to take or give back money.
As other comments say, it's also trivial to claim back a fraudulent charge, it's exposed directly in every online bank system UI.
If you have the right authorisation on a business account you can "direct debit" from any account. It let's you charge a bank account in a similar way as a US creditcard can be charged by number and expiry date. Technically the contract with your bank says you need to have a signed authorisation from the account owner to charge their account, but you don't have to show it to the bank before charging.
The money you get that way isn't guaranteed, the account owner could do a charge back. And if that happens you have to show the signed authorisation from the account owner. If you don't have it, expect your bank to terminate the direct debit ability.
"The Democratic Socialists of America is the largest socialist organization in the United States, with over 100,000 members and chapters in all 50 states. We believe that working people should run both the economy and society democratically to meet human needs, not to make profits for a few."
"Capitalism is a system designed by the owning class to exploit the rest of us for their own profit. We must replace it with democratic socialism, a system where ordinary people have a real voice in our workplaces, neighborhoods, and society."
"democratic socialism" is an oxymoron. socialism conflicts directly with democratic values. At the very least there is no pre-existing example of democracy and socialism working side by side. All previous socialist "experiments" were not democracies.
If 'democratic values' are everyone having an equal voice in how the systems of a country are arranged. And if those people, through a democratic process, decide that the systems of their country shouldn't support the exploitative elements of capitalism, then it would definitely be democracy in action to make that come true. Anything counter to that would be, by definition, anti-democratic.
When you say "socialism conflicts directly with democratic values" I genuinely have no idea what "democratic values" you're talking about.
Scandinavian countries you are referring to are practicing Social Democracy, they are not Democratic Socialist states.
In other words, Social Democrat != Democratic Socialist
Scandinavian model relies on competitive private enterprise to create wealth, combined with strong labor union collective bargaining, universal public services, and high consumption/income taxes that apply broadly across society.
DSA seeks to move past or dismantle the capitalist economic system, advocating for social, public, or worker ownership of the means of production.[1]
"We want to collectively own the key economic drivers that dominate our lives, such as energy production and transportation."
From the linked website. Now, that's not quite "the means of production", explicitly stated. It's just "the key economic drivers", so most of the means of production.
Maybe you ought to be a little less quick to accuse others of lying.
Those still sound like Scandinavia? Energy Production - Vattenfall in Sweden, the Norway oil fund. Transportation? Public transport is mostly publicly owned (trains go back and forth with failed privatization attempts), the road network is wholly state-owned (unlike e.g. Japan where the whole highway network is privatized and tolled)
"Democratic Socialism" is VERY different from "Social Democracy"
In socialism with supposed democracy, where the state owns the means of production and supposedly the workers supposedly have a say about everything, they actually end up with a say about nothing (at least not without greasing the right palms in the inevitably corrupt system that arises).
In Social Democracy, capitalism is the underlying system, where corporations and workers can own means of production, but it operates under sufficient regulation that the excesses and systemic failures of captialism (e.g., failure to prevent Tragedies Of The Commons, tendency towards monopoly and excess concentration of power, consistent tendency to abuse and impoverish workers, etc.), you end up with successful systems like Northern Europe.
The two are very different, and we need to hold the DSA people to the latter and not let them sneak in the former.
I reference direct statements by DSA made on their own websites that they aim to
* replace capitalism [0]
* own means of production [0]
I state the fact that Scandinavian/Nordic countries are Social Democracies (embracing capitalism) and Not Democratic Socialist countries.
You state that Social Democracy and Democratic Socialism is the same.
I ask you "tell me how Social Democrat parties of Denmark or Sweden views on capitalism same thing as DSA view" [1]
And your response is "nobody wants to replace capitalism, you're being absurd
reply" inspite of official DSA statements that i linked to in [0]
My 2 points stand:
* DSA is pretty clear about its desires to replace capitalism [0] and own means of production [0]
* Nordic countries are Social Democracies. THey embrace capitalism, not aim to replace it (as its stated on DSA's own site). Your statement is factually wrong, unless you can find it in your heart to prove me wrong.
I dont know why you felt that bringing Israel discussion about clear socialist goals of DSA will help your argument whatever that is, but try to keep focus about systematic issues with DSA, not geo-political.
They themselves literally say out loud that they want to abolish our existing institutions. If you want to debate that point, go debate the DSA candidates themselves.
You must live under a rock. A quick search will find you plenty of video of politicians talking about defunding things, cancelling Thanksgiving, abolishing ICE or the FDA or the Senate, undercutting small businesses, introducing rationing, etc, etc.
Tarriffs will hurt your existing industries, they will lose sales/revenue.
Since you are getting hurt you play tit-for-tat to get the other to knock it off.
So you add export taxes to items they care about (oil/fertilizer/...) and compensate the losses incurred by existing industries.
You also add tarriffs on items that have alternatives, like alcohool.
Maybe add tarriffs on items with elastic prices, say 100% tarriff on digital services. Software services will have to adjust prices so they end up the same after tarriffs since few people will accept youtube or netflix doubling in price.
This hurts both countries but will get a result - either free trade or no trade.
In the meanwhile, Trump's entourage has derivative bets on this and take massive proffits shorting everyone. For them, this is all massively profitable.
Import tariffs and export tariffs have approximately equal influence on your economy. That's known as Lerner Symmetry. (A very narrow version of this can be proven in a mathematical sense, but the empirical effect is broader.)
For bilateral trade it doesn't matter much whether country A imposes import tariffs or country B exposes export tariffs.
Basically, the whole talk about retaliatory tariffs is silly.
> Basically, the whole talk about retaliatory tariffs is silly.
Why?, retaliatory - in response to US, tarriffs - taxes, whether on export or import, as you noted, doesnt matter much. Effect depends on who needs to either sell or buy the tarrifed items the most.
I'm saying that the retaliation imposes basically the same costs on you that you are trying to avoid by getting the other guy to lower their tariffs.
Just cut the crap, and unilaterally remove your tariffs and refuse to play the game. If the US wants to tax their importers, that's their own domestic silliness.
Don't like it, don't do genocide or dont visit its member countries.
reply