yed

8 ms·

31.
by yed 3y ago
In the United States at least there's plenty of land far away from crowds, and inexpensive too. People just don't want to live there.
32.
by yed 3y ago
What’s the point of explicitly assigning “accountability” to a client? They aren’t answerable to you so there’s no practical outcome to them being declared accountable. Why not just define the tasks they are responsible for and leave it at
33.
by yed 3y ago
It’s mostly a legacy protocol at this point.
34.
by yed 3y ago
For what it’s worth, this is driven by federal regulations and carrier requirements, not by Twilio itself.
35.
by yed 3y ago
This article is from 2012
36.
by yed 4y ago
Do you have a reference for this? In interviews I read the Wachowskis defended the whole “batteries” explanation, which lessened my opinion of them. Edit: found a pretty good reference for it being true: https://scifi.stackexchan
37.
by yed 4y ago
As above, Section 2-3: COVERED HOLDING. —The term “covered holding”— (A) means […] a controlling holding held, directly or indirectly, in an ICTS covered holding entity by— … “Controlling holding” is defined in section 2-2 Edit: here you
38.
by yed 4y ago
“Controlling interest” and “controlling holding” are well worn financial concepts with long legal precedent that are not open to creative interpretation. These principles are how the feds evaluate insider trading and such.
39.
by yed 4y ago
Section 2-3: COVERED HOLDING.—The term “covered holding”— (A) means […] a controlling holding held, directly or indirectly, in an ICTS covered holding entity by— … “Controlling holding” is defined in section 2-2 Edit: section 2-2 (2) CONT
40.
by yed 4y ago
Holding a minority of common stock does not give you the power to “determine, direct, or decide important matters” so no, it would not cover that.
41.
by yed 4y ago
“determine, direct, or decide important matters” is what makes this specific. This is no different than the traditional definition of “controlling interest”. The meaning of “controlling” in this context has a long legal precedent that is no
42.
by yed 4y ago
This is not accurate. The bill only applies to companies in which China (or other designated adversary) has a controlling interest. It doesn’t even remotely apply to “everything connected to the internet”. I’m against the bill for vaguely
43.
by yed 4y ago
No, it only applies to entities where China has a controlling interest. If you buy Chinese hardware that doesn’t make your company Chinese.
44.
by yed 4y ago
You're right, the definition of transaction is quite broad here. However in order for VPN to run afoul of this bill, the gov't would first need to enforce the bill by banning individual users from accessing specific sites on the i
45.
by yed 4y ago
The bill applies to only to financial transactions ("covered transactions" in the bill) and holdings ("covered holdings"), there's nothing in it at all directly regulating access to data or websites by individuals.
46.
by yed 4y ago
The provider would have to be controlled by China or other designated foreign adversary, and they would indeed have to be doing something determined to be a serious threat to the US.
47.
by yed 4y ago
The bill only applies to companies where a foreign national from an adversary country has a "controlling holding". i.e., none of the companies you listed or any other American owned company are subject to it at all.
48.
by yed 4y ago
No this interpretation is negated by sec 2-2, it has to be a "controlling holding" to count as a "covered holding": > (2) CONTROLLING HOLDING.—The term “controlling holding” means a holding with the power, whether dir
49.
by yed 4y ago
I think the VPN concern comes from a misreading of what is meant by "holding". A "holding" in this context is a financial asset like a stock. The section you highlighted: > (B) includes any other holding, the structur
50.
by yed 4y ago
The intent there is to deal with people trying to get around the provision via intermediary holding companies. At its core there still must be some ownership stake or controlling interest by a foreign national, whether direct or indirect. E
51.
by yed 4y ago
I've read the bill and while I'm not a fan for more general reasons, it doesn't say anything like this at all. The bill is strictly about foreigners from designated US "adversaries" having an ownership stake in larg
52.
by yed 4y ago
The bill doesn't directly ban data sharing but instead focuses on foreign ownership in US companies. It would be enforced similar to anti-trust laws today, by preventing Chinese nationals from purchasing or having an ownership stake in
53.
by yed 4y ago
The point of the bill is to give the executive branch the power to do exactly that: investigate and potentially ban or force divestment on any large technology business owned by a US adversary like China and determined to pose a serious sec
54.
by yed 4y ago
> But when one says that GPT is "just a statistical model" they're implying a capacity cap of statistical models Except there is no “capacity cap” on statistical models, we have no idea what they are or are not capable of
55.
by yed 4y ago
This is not true anymore, they changed their terms so this is now opt in.
56.
by yed 4y ago
Full article here: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/368849088_A_highly_...
57.
by yed 4y ago
Their training data comes from repos, not from you using the tool.
58.
by yed 4y ago
It's a shopping mall conglomerate. They specialize in massive multi-level shopping malls.
59.
by yed 4y ago
That is exactly what birdwatch is: https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/product/2021/introduci...
60.
by yed 4y ago
The operators of the VPN in this case are also the developers of the browser. If they want to inject content they can do that without the VPN.

More ›