mmooss

41 ms·

841.
by mmooss 8mo ago
> it’s only from today’s era of hyper-regulation that we might even imagine something like that. How is regulation involved? The OP's idea was that Microsoft feared being sued by other companies over IP. If there is some increase in
842.
by mmooss 8mo ago
This sounds like the usual talking points. > left-leaning, anti-police As if there is any correlation, or crimes don't occur in right-leaning locales. > hypothetical/theoretical harm Freedom is very real, and includes securi
843.
by mmooss 8mo ago
Very interesting. What was the objective?
844.
by mmooss 8mo ago
Those seem like over-ambition or hindsight, which is different than constantly, intentionally doing things in a way that will fail. The indiginous people's choices can't be understood without knowing their political context in reg
845.
by mmooss 8mo ago
> ... 90% of the hazard assessments assume coastal sea levels based on geoid models, rather than using actual sea-level measurements. > A geoid is an equipotential surface model that approximates MSL based on gravity and the rotation
846.
by mmooss 8mo ago
Here's an hypothesis: A fundamental model of politics is similar to the model of innovation in markets: The status quo power and the challenger or disrupter power. The status quo's power rests on its institutions, stability, and t
847.
by mmooss 8mo ago
Could you give us some of these examples?
848.
by mmooss 8mo ago
IIRC, polls show most Americans support action on climate change. When it's politicized, then they oppose it.
849.
by mmooss 8mo ago
That's a serious issue: How could retractions work with LLMs? How could they be made to work? Accuracy rots over time, and at varying rates. It's not just scientific research.
850.
by mmooss 8mo ago
It depends on how durable they make the switches. Lightswitches, for example, tend to be durable.
851.
by mmooss 8mo ago
> I just don't see a world where that doesn't happen with Meta glasses. People widely accept mass surveilance and facial recognition, including by doorbells, phones, cameras on the street, etc. They post images and videos onlin
852.
by mmooss 8mo ago
Their blog has (or had?) some extensive technical explanations, for example about their implemenation of features utilizing SGX.
853.
by mmooss 8mo ago
Again, what is that based on? NASA has one success after another. JWST, helicopters flying on Mars, Europa Clipper (ongoing), etc. etc. etc.
854.
by mmooss 8mo ago
You said you don't know who makes the decisions.
855.
by mmooss 8mo ago
Here's a little story I read about how Pokemon's story intertwined with the rest of the fantasy gaming universe: You might have heard of another fantasy card game called Magic: The Gathering, started in the early 1990s by a small
856.
by mmooss 8mo ago
I wish GrapheneOS the best. If their mission is user security and freedom, transparency is necessary. As far as I can tell, there is little public information or indications of trust. Daniel Micay posts on this thread that the names of the
857.
by mmooss 8mo ago
Isn't their CEO well known?
858.
by mmooss 8mo ago
> Not sustainable as opposed to what, exactly? Developing and maintaining a completely different mobile operating system? Focusing on truly open platforms sound nice in theory, but completely falls apart the moment you consider what peop
859.
by mmooss 8mo ago
That is only looking at (mostly orbital) launch systems, such a minor part of NASA's R&D and missions that the Obama administration decided to contract it out. NASA doesn't develop or build lots of technology that has become m
860.
by mmooss 8mo ago
I don't know or care about some classification of SpaceX, but about what they do. My description is accurate, I think. I don't understand the second part: NASA doesn't do groundbreaking work, because you found one project, in
861.
by mmooss 8mo ago
The GGP said he threw people under the bus. That's different than making changes to a program. > true I don't believe you can know that. Saying it with assurance - by Internet randos or by the NASA administrator - is more a sig
862.
by mmooss 8mo ago
> NASA was also far better funded back then Is that true? The US has far more money to spend now, in real dollars. > didn’t have to fight congresspeople and the aerospace giants lobbying them Is that true? I doubt it. Big budget progr
863.
by mmooss 8mo ago
> Isaacman's competence has mostly consisted of (rightfully) throwing is predecessors under the bus. That's irresponsbility and incompentence in any position, especially at that level of management.
864.
by mmooss 8mo ago
What is that based on? NASA's recent accomplishments are far beyond anyone. Off the top of my head: The many Mars missions, JWST, Europa Clipper (still in progress), etc. SpaceX hasn't left Earth orbit, afaik.
865.
by mmooss 8mo ago
It's certainly harder, I agree. We have highly sophisticated, non-deterministic image recognition. We don't have to be perfect to have a significant impact, and to stop the 99.x% of amateurs. > Paper money being almost non-fung
866.
by mmooss 8mo ago
If you want to choose example of a failed approach to space exploration, NASA is your worst option. It's like choosing Netflix as an example of a failed approach to video multicasting. NASA's approach to space exploration remains
867.
by mmooss 8mo ago
I think they demonstrate a welcome and sophisticated understanding of technology. Their solution to age verification maximizes privacy by not sending any data off the computer besides a simple signal of age category (if I understand the des
868.
by mmooss 8mo ago
Fair enough, but, > historical trends have been reasserting themselves Western liberalism is an historical trend, just like the others.
869.
by mmooss 8mo ago
Why are so many adopting this name for what is by law, by the American people, called the Department of Defense? The name change pertains directly to the Anthropic issue, which is the function of the government and department, the power of
870.
by mmooss 8mo ago
> the return of history The idea that somehow the current actions are 'real' history and what people were doing before is fake just feeds the claim of inevitabiility, a basic psyops maneuver - you can't win; our victory is

More ›