Were they convicted? It seems irresponsible to let someone strongly suspected of harming children to continue to have close contact with children. “Innocent until proven guilty” is a criminal justice concept. It actually doesn’t apply to civil matters.
I don't think the conviction matters to the point. They were convicted, but my point is that a suspicion that causes an investigation should probably warrant telling those who could be at risk, even if the investigation ends up going nowhere.
Not sure what you mean about the civil matter, CSAM offences are criminal, so I'd expect "innocent until proven guilty" to apply in this case. If you mean that for other civil matters there's no need to notify those at risk, I would agree, I doubt anything civil meets the bar of risk.
I think I misunderstood your point. It sounded like you were arguing against telling the scout group prior to the conviction, because they were innocent until proven guilty. But from your follow up, it sounds like you agree with telling the scout group prior to his conviction. In that case, I agree with you.
In the UK, at least, I think if you were charged with this they limit your access to vulnerable groups until the charges have run their course and there is a verdict either way.
I know someone who worked on smart TV software. They explicitly added audio fingerprinting via integrated microphone so they could determine which programs you were watching for ad profiling.
When in the history of online ads have advertisers not used available data?
Automatic content recognition is one of the freakiest kinds of tracking I've heard of. Smart TVs become data collection hubs for the home if they get connected to the internet. Some have microphones for voice recognition. If you go into the privacy policies for them, you'll find that your audio gets sent off to third parties (albeit only when in use).
Ha, I’m imagining a sort of thriller movie villain reveal where people are intently saying silly things into their phones, while the camera slowly pans over to the smart TV in the corner, which is actually listening.
I agree with the sentiment that great APIs are a prerequisite to great SDKs, but great SDKs are really about time saving. Consider AWS's API, which requires a specific signing mechanism. That is annoying to implement manually. In general, the common method of shared-secret passed via bearer token is pretty insecure. I hope to see that change over time, and SDKs can help facilitate that.
There are really two distinct homelessness problems:
1. The “temporarily unhoused”. These are people who have fallen on hard times and need temporary assistance to get back on their feet. These people live out of their cars and are largely invisible.
2. The chronically homeless. These are drug users who infest public spaces and are highly visible and disruptive.
When laypeople talk about “homelessness”, they typically mean 2 as it’s more visible and disruptive to them.
This is a good point, but part of what the article is saying is that where housing is cheap, some of even those "at the margins of society" people with some drug problems can maybe stay housed. Which means fixing the drug part of their problems is easier than if they're moving around on the streets.
Ya, but isn’t that complete BS? I lived in Vicksburg MS, and while housing is definitely cheap, it’s not free, and you can’t really survive there if you can’t make any money at all. So you either die or move.
Yes, that’s totally true! I think this is a much more interesting problem when we get rid of the drug addiction component. It is just sad that drug addiction is consuming all of our social resources that could otherwise go into solving housing problems.
A lot of kids from Vicksburg also move to LA and don’t make it because of housing costs, so they move elsewhere. But should they have made it? Should LA be affordable enough for everyone who wants to live there to live there? If not, but we want to subsidize housing for some segment of the American population to live in LA, how do we prioritize? If yes, how much housing do we need to build to satisfy all American and international demand to live in LA?
This is based on the fact that we have finite resources. Any resources that go to housing drug addicts could have been used for something else. There is a real opportunity cost there.
> Also, why are people with a drug problem less deserving than people with housing problems.
There are a few issues with housing drug addicts:
1. Understand, these people aren't just run-of-the-mill addicts. They are so addicted to drugs that they'll live in unimaginably horrid conditions to support their addiction. Any housing they receive will be destroyed and made uninhabitable.
2. Housing them makes the system more miserable and undesirable for everyone else. If you're a parent with children and you're facing homelessness, are you really going to use a resource where close contact with heavy drug addicts is possible?
> Finally, what I understand from experts is that the first step to helping people with drug problems is to get them stable housing.
That's actually the second step. The first step is getting the addict to want to quit drugs. Many addicts don't want to stop using, and giving those people housing is not going to be an effective way to combat their addiction if they aren't first interested stopping their addictive behavior.
Again, what is that all based on? It disagrees with most of what I read from researchers and people on the ground, especially that quitting is the first step before housing.
I've seen where many people with those problems live, and the places aren't horrid, just lacking in money and social services.
It just seems like demonization of yet another group - this time, people who have drug addictions. Why is it important to demonize them?
> This is based on the fact that we have finite resources. Any resources that go to housing drug addicts could have been used for something else. There is a real opportunity cost there.
And anything spent on other things could have been spent helping people addicted to drugs. Why is one more important or deserving than the other, other than the demonization?
The problem with that is that they're also a problem when they're on the streets, sometimes even more of a problem. Someone who's not a problem and generally minding their own business is less of an threat than someone who's drug addiction is driving them to commit violence. We can't arrest them before they do anything violent, and after they've harmed someone else is too late.
> The problem with that is that they're also a problem when they're on the streets, sometimes even more of a problem. Someone who's not a problem and generally minding their own business is less of an threat than someone who's drug addiction is driving them to commit violence.
That applies to every criminal act, so why are we signaling out people addicted to drugs? Plenty of people on Wall Street commit crimes daily, stealing money from innocent people - do we worry about how to preemptively stop them?
The answer, IMHO, is that some have effectively demonized people with drug addictions and people who are unhoused, to legitimize hate and violence in our society (and to get rid of people they don't like). 'I hate/fear unhoused / mentally ill people, so it's ok to choke one to death or lock them away without trial.'
It's not only hurts and oppresses those individuals, but it lays the foundation for the next stages - progressive protestors, and soon mass detention of immigrants. It's either human rights for all or for none.
You said using, not possession, and after you've used it, it's no longer in your possession, externally. That distinction does not matter in New York, however, as it's not one of the places where it's illegal to posses but legal if you've just used it. (Unless it's weed.)
> There are really two distinct homelessness problems:
> 1. The “temporarily unhoused”. These are people who have fallen on hard times and need temporary assistance to get back on their feet. These people live out of their cars and are largely invisible.
> 2. The chronically homeless. These are drug users who infest public spaces and are highly visible and disruptive.
What is that based on? Do you have any data to support these categories as something real? It sounds a lot like, '1) people I like; and 2) people I hate.'
It's wrong to discuss human beings like animals, and as if they exist to please or displease you, and as if they can be treated like animals.
They are people with their own experiences, like you, sensations and emotions and lives, who matter just as much as you do and belong in public spaces just as much. I've spent lots of time in major cities; chronically homeless people are among the least disruptive, and I've talked to many and know a few people in that situation; people on opioids are in their own worlds, often in a dream.
The second category isn't just drug users. It's also people who are not mentally capable of keeping up the routine of decisions that keep them off the streets. Opposite of the "temporarily unhoused" category, they tend to be "temporarily housed".
There’s obviously a huge difference between a scam and a violent attack. The person being scammed doesn’t ever lose their agency and willingly participates. That’s very different from a knife attack, where the victim would leave at every moment if possible.
This all ultimately boils down to "the attacks that I believe I'm immune to are okay, the attacks that I'm not immune to are not okay."
The victim in your knife attack had the opportunity to leave by never going to the grocery store. The fact they couldn't foresee that attack is solely because they lacked the information or cognitive ability to foresee it, just like an 80 IQ gambler with a Draftkings account lacks the information/cognitive ability to foresee the attack on him.
So many people walk around with the implicit ethical system that 80 IQers don't deserve to have a decent life in the modern world. That is obviously despicable once it's stated explicitly.
No, your argument is basically “all bad things are equivalent to knife attacks.” Look, I’m not saying deception and scamming are “ok”, I’m just saying comparing them to knife attacks is stupid.
True, but I think the main issue is that neither is beneficial to society, genetically or otherwise. The main purpose of the knife attack analogy is to demonstrate that protecting against that involves skills that are useless if we can just eliminate the threat in the first place
Many of us experience that knife attacks are not part of life, but perhaps we take for granted the existence of scammers?
Granted, being able to protect against one self against a scam may include talents that carry over to other useful aspects of society building, but same with being able to fight off knife attacks
And again the point is that, 1: those aren't the only beneficial aspects to society. someone without those talents may be brilliant in other ways, thus evolutionary pressure on that is not helpful. And even if someone isn't brilliant in other ways, we are all still valuable. Just ask a parent who raises a highly disabled kid, they will know this far more deeply than you or I do
Scammers target people who can be easily manipulated so that they can mostly remove targets’ agency. The victim doesn’t know that it’s a scam, so why would they run?
The issue isn’t performing the specific addition. Rather, you’re asking o1 to take n-bits of data and combine them according to some set of rules. Isn’t that what these models are supposed to excel at, following instructions? Binary addition is interesting because the memorization space grows at 2^n, which is impossible to memorize for moderate values of n.
I meant this in the general case, not specifically binary addition. Also, returning an token by ChatGPT is technically an O(1) operation, so the same principle applies. Returning a computation answer of O(n_required_tokens) cannot be delivered in O(1) time without some sort of caching.
I think OPs general point, although maybe not what they stated is correct: it’s easy to write GC’d code. It’s “easy” to write code with manual memory management. It’s “easy” to write RC code. But it’s hard to write borrow checker code. And that will probably limit adoption, even though the goals of Rust are good.
It really depends on what you mean by “complex UI.” In you mean a UI that needs to handle real-time user input, then it is extremely difficult to get React to be performant once the complexity reaches a certain scale.
As an illustration, try to make a website that has 1000 drag-and-drop elements that you can drag around the page. Getting it to render at 60-120 fps is hard and fragile.
"As an illustration, try to make a website that has 1000 drag-and-drop elements that you can drag around the page. Getting it to render at 60-120 fps is hard and fragile."
Glad I always avoided react then, despite all the hype.
