Listening to music with my young kids is a favorite. My wife and I also frequently invite other couples over to listen to vinyl and enjoy a cocktail or two.
We like vinyl just because it has the physicality to it but I think anything here is fine. It's the music and the shared experience.
Executive (and upper management) hiring is much more about owning and using risk, getting the management unit (your part of the org) all aligned and singing the same tune, and for executives showing that you've done this successfully across distinct business units (eg sales and engineering).
There's then a much more serious alignment pass.
Relationships can and do pre-vouch for big pieces of this such as alignment - if you've worked with someone for a decade, you are probably mission aligned.
One of the issues is that these aren't proper DMCA claims, instead Google/Youtube do a weird pseudo-DMCA thing where they just agree to take down your content and make you argue about it.
But the DMCA allows immediate countersuit for false notice with damages. If Google/Youtube actually just forwarded strict DMCA notices and no longer did takedowns once you counter-claimed, you could sue the trolls and collect damages. At that point it's just a free lunch for some bored lawyers willing to publish public domain works, covers, etc that are protected.
One of the loopholes of the counter-claim, is that you accept whatever random jurisdiction of the original claimer as your jurisdiction, pulling you usually into US Sphere.
It's a rigged game, its better not to engage with.
the specific laws and consequences from ai:
> Under 17 U.S.C. § 512(g)(3)(D), for a DMCA counter-notice to be legally valid, the person filing it must explicitly state in writing that they consent to the jurisdiction of a US Federal District Court.
> If you live in the US, you consent to the federal court in your local district.
> If you live outside the US, you must consent to the judicial district where the service provider (YouTube/Google) is located—which means the Northern District of California.
> For a creator living in Europe, Asia, or South America, filing a counter-notice means signing a document that legally exposes them to a federal copyright lawsuit in California. Even if the creator is 100% in the right (e.g., they used public domain footage or have clear Fair Use), the sheer financial threat of having to hire a US federal defense attorney to fight a lawsuit in California is often enough to make them abandon the dispute.
Yes. However, there are a lot of attorneys who do not want to take on the risk of representing a small client[0] and advise them to just settle - that's why copyright trolling works.
In addition, some platforms have their own parallel dispute resolution processes that have to be navigated first before you can make a formal DMCA complaint or counter-complaint. The reason for this is because those platforms have a lot of user piracy, and having their own system to ID and takedown work their users are reuploading makes it easier for them to negotiate their own licenses to the work. These systems are unregulated and often biased in favor of the legacy media companies who are selling them these rights in ways the DMCA process isn't.
The average attorney is not an expert platform Kremlinologist, and law schools don't teach how to fight YouTube Content ID - mainly because the things that actually work against Content ID are things that would get you punished harder in a real court of law.
Finally, the actual case we're talking about - Luanti - is a lot more involved than typical piracy cases or DMCA abuse cases. They are, after all, trying to make a game engine for Minecraft-like voxel games, and the screenshots they're showing off of those games are not entirely dissimilar to Minecraft. This is not "Luanti is an infringing copy of Minecraft", but "There is enough similarity to survive a motion to dismiss and require an actual trial". At which point the actual cost to defend goes from 4-5 figures to 6-7.
[0] The massive payments attorneys get for representation are priced into the cost of education and testing required to become a licensed attorney. As a result, every minute you spend representing someone who can't afford you is time not being spent paying back student loans.
I suppose the UK could declare Palestine Action as combatants and hunt them down and shoot them.. but that doesn't seem very uh, appropriate. I sort of prefer them being arrested and going through courts.
Note that the UK would be committing war crimes in this case, since you are not allowed to murder unarmed soldiers, you are supposed to capture them and put them in POW camps.
Which is typically called „arresting“ when a government does it to their own citizens…
That's also false, you can absolutely kill unarmed combatants so long as they remain combatants. Eg you can bomb an artillery crew even if they don't have sidearms.
To be eligible for capture, a combatant must generally surrender.
> typically called „arresting“ when a government does it to their own citizens
I encourage you to read up on POW camps. There are no attorneys or rights. You may work POWs. There are cases in which food and medical aid can be severely limited depending on how it is sourced. You may hold POWs functionally forever.
Source that you wouldn’t be allowed to kill unarmed enemy soldiers? Imagine a scouting team doing reconnaissance, surely you’re allowed to attack and kill them?
I did some perf benchmarking with 1M nodes but I'm mostly using it at smaller scales for another project exploring agentic memory.
Most interesting part is a tough one. From a learning perspective the beginning was incredibly interesting because I was spending a lot of time learning about how other DBs work. Even something as relatively simple as writing to disk had a lot more complexity to it than I initially anticipated.
I used LLMs extensively in building this, and the other interesting part was seeing how they failed. I've always been a proponent that tests are no guarantee of quality code, and working with LLMs has only reinforced it. They often write superficial tests. Sometimes a suite of tests would pass, but when I would actually play around with the feature it was clearly broken. LLMs certainly enabled me to build something of this scope, but it was far from "build a graph DB and notify me when you are done"
I use it heavily for personal use and find it works very well and lets me ship small applications quickly. I still use rust and other languages too as appropriate.
Author here: I always wash my clothes in cold water, 100% of the time. I really don't know what happened, but the T-shirt was already ruined after 3 or 4 washes. Any advice is more than welcome :)
I stopped using superpowers because it wanted to turn every tiny bug fix into a $37MM DOD project. I got effective results but it took ages. I may try again - I need to find a good way to run different profiles in my harness so I can easily shut it off. The default planning workflow in OMP is pretty good though.
I agree Luna is great for task execution, either as a sub-agent with Sol planning and coordinating or if the task is well defined and straightforward, but there are lots of models now that you can say that about.
You would probably get better results with Luna for the real simple tasks, or Sol with low thinking effort.
I find that I get exactly the effort that I asked for, which is pretty nice. The other side of that coin is that these are the least lazy models I’ve used so far. They will go on elaborate tangents to complete the task when I want them to.
I've found it's worse for simple tasks too, and I have to give it stricter guidelines, and sometimes it doesn't follow the same patterns I've grown to expect. I've found using 5.6 (sol) is good for diagnosing issues though, especially in terms of optimization of some given path
Yep. I have not yet had a single good experience with Sol or the 5.6 models on a variety of harnesses and configurations. It overthinks, overcomplicates and often makes my code into an unmaintainable sludge. It'll usually take 5+ turns of steering to get it in the right direction.
It's your responsibility to set an appropriate level of Thinking. For simple tasks, I use the instant model. As an approximation, the choice is proportional to the amount of time I want it spending on the task. Also, you can always ask it to respond succinctly.
It surprises me how much Americans don't understand how deeply the cartel is in every transaction. Yes, sending money to Grandma to pay for a car is funding the cartel who probably got paid to make the car available. Grandma may even pay small direct bribes to the cartel just to be able to live her life.
Either all of Mexico can move to the US (probably not a winning solution) or we can make Mexico a safe and excellent country again, and that means getting rid of the cartel.
And yes, other countries have their issues too and we should help stabilize those countries as well.
If the Mexican government can fix their cartel issue, we can go back to normal remittances. Until then the US will make policy choices to resolve problems.
As always, the salt of the earth people will pay the cost for politicians being bad at things.
What you're suggesting is that all Mexicans suffer more because some money may somehow end up in the hands of the cartel. And that, for some reason, the US should help do this. That's absurd.
If you really want to eliminate the cartels make recreational drugs legal.
Positive effects aside, legalizing recreational drugs will not eliminate the cartels, but instead will reroute the distribution of their product through "legal" channels. The cartels have sufficient power that the only move left is their integration with established markets. They aren't just going to lie flat while "legitimate" corporations take their spot.
Legalizing has other benefits though, like increasing scrutiny into human- and arms-trafficking, a legitimized drug business will need to shed that part somehow and hide it.
Plus we have seen from italian-american gangs and certain casinos that if you force them to legitimate businesses, they eventually become legal organizations. Why continue with illegal and volatile illegal business when you have a profitable legal one?
You give your sister $100. You find out later that she uses $50 of that money to buy heroin and inject it in herself.
Do you keep giving her the $100?
Absolutely not! This isn't even a real question.
If you directly enable a person or group of people or country to harm themselves and others, you have a duty to stop doing it.
If US remittances are directly fueling the cartel which beats, rapes, murders and even engages in torture, then not only may the US cease that but it is plainly ethically bound to do so.
Yes, this will make it hard for Grandma to buy a car.
You can't fund the people who torture and rape random Mexican farmers so Grandma can buy a car.
> If you really want to eliminate the cartels make recreational drugs legal.
While murdering drug users with their own money may seem like a clever solution, you are in fact still doing murder just in long form.
> You can't fund the people who torture and rape random Mexican farmers so Grandma can buy a car.
If you have paid taxes, or participated in the United States of Americas economy, you have directly funded the rape of indigenous Americans, the bombing of Venezuelan fisherman and Iranian schoolgirls.
How do you think the rest of the world should react to this? Total economic embargo towards the US? Leveling the continent?
How should Americans who oppose rape and murder of children (like you seem to be) react to the fact that they fund rapes and murders?
You pay taxes in the US? You are directly enabling a country to harm others.
You ever buy a phone? You are directly enabling a chain of groups to harm people (in the name of creating that phone).
You ever give a dollar to a homeless man? You might be directly contributing to them harming themselves (or possibly just letting them buy food/drink).
Heck even your example about your sister, I think some people would argue that it's still the moral choice.
Clearly there's a spectrum here. Black and white thinking and statements aren't helping and shouldn't be the basis for policy decisions.
You can and should be making explicit choices in that framework.
You should not buy phones connected to the mistreatment of the Uighur population - and that is doable.
If you think the US is doing more harm than good, you are allowed to move and surrender your citizenship.
And yes, that is literally why I don't support direct cash handouts to the homeless. You can feed them and house them, you can't throw money at them and expect a good outcome.
You should not cast your money as to do harm. If your money is the difference between your sister being homeless or not, then stop giving her money and pay her rent. Buy her grocery cards.
But if you directly contribute to harm, knowably, you are enabling that harm. This is not some weird novel part of ethics. It is in fact black and white.
> If you think the US is doing more harm than good, you are allowed to move and surrender your citizenship.
Well, no, you aren't necessarily without paying a special additional tax to the US government, so it doesn't really solve the problem of believing that paying US taxes is active participation in morally intolerable actions.
> If you think the US is doing more harm than good, you are allowed to move and surrender your citizenship.
Actually, I have heard that it’s very hard, if possible at all, to surrender American citizenship. It’s a real problem for some people who had the misfortune of being born on American soil.
Not only is it very doable but the US consulate in your new country will literally help you fill out the paperwork.
1. Move to a new country
2. Present proof you have a new citizenship (you can't generally be "nationless" by international law or you end up remaining a citizen of whatever country you were last a citizen of)
3. Fill out the paperwork and pay $450. The consulate will assist you if you need help.
If you can follow the instructions to bake a cake, you can surrender your US citizenship. It's neither difficult nor expensive.
> And yes, that is literally why I don't support direct cash handouts to the homeless. You can feed them and house them, you can't throw money at them and expect a good outcome.
You maintain this despite all the research showing that this is the most effective way to help people?
> If you really want to eliminate the cartels make recreational drugs legal.
Insufficient. Avocados are already legal in the US and yet the cartels have moved into that business. Cartels follow money. They are not going to just roll over when drug money dries up.
I am against marijuana but I think it's clear legalizing it successfully starves the cartel of a lot of drug financing (and therefore we should both legalize it and have public campaigns against using it, ala alcohol).
Even the weird state based legalization has caused the cartels to pivot into things like avocado farming and mining.
Drug users don't seem to be overly preoccupied with what drug they use. Probably shifting them towards lower risk choices (pot, ketamine) and aggressively crack down on dealers is a winning combo.
(A lot of low level dealers are just graduated drug users but the line between buying and selling is a large one and dealers do immense harm while also shielding more dangerous criminals. Incentives against dealing incl aggressive enforcement are powerful at dissuading low level dealers, which in turn starves the criminal organizations.)
> Drug users don't seem to be overly preoccupied with what drug they use.
What? In the case of opiates (which is the most significant drug problem we have at the moment), users are often physically addicted to a specific substance and that addiction was often initiated by legitimate medical usage of that substance. They'll certainly care if you say "hey, you can't use heroin any more, have some weed instead".
The medical pipeline for opiate addiction has been gone for several years now.
Most users were exposed to fentanyl unknowingly through buying other tainted drugs, often expecting percocet or even ecstasy.
Some of these users do require methodone treatment, but you can't give drug users unregulated access to opiates. That is just not gonna work out. Either they are going to self taper ("stretching" their tail of their stash) or they are going to end up in a hospital and get tapered by a professional.
Fron what I can tell, immigration levels right now are about the same as they were in the late 19th century, when a lot of our great grandparents first came to the US.
At that time, the scare was about the Chinese, as opposed to brown people from South of the border.
> Fron what I can tell, immigration levels right now are about the same as they were in the late 19th century, when a lot of our great grandparents first came to the US.
... and which, in turn, led to the Immigration Act of 1924, which gave the US 40 years of relief from the influx to integrate the existing population. We need another such.
Where do you get the line about the biggest migration in history from? Your link seems to just be to a one sentence Reddit comment from someone with the same username as you, and no source.
Feel free to come up with another country that has sent 10% of its population over 50 years to one other country, and is large enough that that means an eight-figure population transfer.
We like vinyl just because it has the physicality to it but I think anything here is fine. It's the music and the shared experience.