FaceDeer

My guess would be that they figure the engineering to get that to work is simple enough that they skipped the risk of it messing up the much more challenging and interesting test of reentry. They already relight Merlin engines in a vacuum routinely so they're experienced with that, even though Raptor's a very different engine I bet there's plenty of similarities there.

I could imagine the NSA embedding an agent inside Cloudflare specifically to keep an eye out for any foreign agents also being embedded in Cloudflare, rather than to dig out its secrets for themselves.

My current day is only just starting, so I'll modify the standard quote a bit to ensure it encompasses enough things to be meaningful; this is the dumbest thing I've read all yesterday.

Now I'm imagining someone standing next to the 3D printer working on a T-1000, fervently hoping that the 3D printer that's working on their axe finishes a little faster. "Should have printed it lying flat on the print bed," he thinks to himself. "Would it be faster to stop the print and start it again in that orientation? Damn it, I printed it edge-up, I have to wait until it's completely done..."

Indeed. If only Frankenstein's Monster had been shunned nothing bad would have happened.

Like, Stable Diffusion, a tool used to generate images, would fall under this. It's very questionable that it, however, would be terribly useful in doing anything dangerous.

My concern is how short a hop it is from this to "won't someone please think of the children?" And then someone uses Stable Diffusion to create a baby in a sexy pose and it's all down in flames. IMO that sort of thing happens enough that pushing back against "gateway" legislation is reasonable.

California putting a restriction like that in place, absent some kind of global restriction, won't stop development of models.

I'd be concerned about its impact on the deployment of models too. Companies are not going to want to write software that they can't sell in California, or that might get them sued if someone takes it into California despite it not being sold there. Silicon Valley is in California, this isn't like it's Montana banning it.

I wish more people realized science fiction authors aren't even trying to make good predictions about the future, even if that's something they were good at. They're trying to make stories that people will enjoy reading and therefore that will sell well. Stories where nothing goes particularly wrong tend not to have a compelling plot, so they write about technology going awry so that there'll be something to write about. They insert scary stuff because people find reading about scary stuff to be fun.

There might actually be nothing bad about the Torment Nexus, and the classic sci-fi novel "Don't Create The Torment Nexus" was nonsense. We shouldn't be making policy decisions based off of that.

The amount of sociopathy required to fraudulently derail Alzheimers research worldwide for the sake of your own personal career is mind-boggling. If this is truly what happened here my anger at this individual will be... significant.

That's what the government said after Google paid. But also in the article:

Google said it contained "every dollar the United States could conceivably hope to recover under the damages calculation of the United States' own expert."

...

In a filing on Wednesday, Google said the DOJ previously agreed that its claims amounted to less than $1 million before trebling and pre-judgment interest. The check sent by Google was for the exact amount after trebling and interest, the filing said. But the "DOJ now ignores this undisputed fact, offering up a brand new figure, previously uncalculated by any DOJ expert, unsupported by the record, and never disclosed," Google told the court.

Siding with Google at today's hearing, Brinkema "said the amount of Google's check covered the highest possible amount the government had sought in its initial filings," the Associated Press reported.

So it sounds to me like the prosecution quoted a figure they thought was high, Google said "sure, we'll pay that," and then the prosecution scrambled to say "no, wait, we want more!" After the fact.

Google's far from my favourite company, but I really don't like the idea of the prosecution being able to arbitrarily jack up their demands after someone agrees to meet them.

The person I was responding to didn't say "I think they'll eventually make it opt-out again, at some point in the future, in my opinion." He gave a factual description of the current state of the feature. An incorrect one.

If you want to hate on face-eating leopards at least be accurate when describing them. Otherwise you become the boy that cried face-eating leopard.

The prosecution's own expert estimated that the amount that was paid was the maximum they could expect to get.

Except it's not a bribe. It's entirely above-board, the money they're paying is a fine. They're not "getting out of a ticket", they're paying the ticket.