I entirely agree. At $NEWJOB, I had a Linux laptop for a bit while a Mac was on backorder.
Not being able to cut/paste easily because every tool used the Control key for something different, especially in the terminal, was infuriating.
Having the command key handle these kinds of GUI-focused interactions, and Control for most of the terminal-centric and text manipulation (Ctrl-A/E for beginning/end of line, from Emacs) makes the system great to work with.
I didn't mind anything else about my foray into Linux as a desktop OS. If we could get a Linux GUI distro that all it did was match the Mac command key paradigm, I think it would make a lot of people happy.
Shift+Insert will let you paste anywhere. It's an IBM thing historically, I believe, and it works pretty much anywhere. Also useful for websites that try to block normal ctrl+v.
"more constraints on corporate power" assumes that the existing ones are functional, which they arguably are not.
If we enforced existing laws against unauthorized access to someone else's computer resources against the companies who run a model that hacks someone else, rather than buying their "The agents did it, we're not responsible" BS, then maybe the incentives to behave responsibly would improve.
OpenAI immediately disclosed the hack and submitted to both internal and external investigations, and published extremely detailed breakdowns of what happened. How is that not taking responsibility?
The penalty for "unauthorized access to a computer system" is 1 to 20 years in prison[1]. Holding corporations accountable would include sending the highest person in the chain-of-command that caused the Hugging Face incident to jail. Or at least start with some charges and then let the judicial system do its thing.
To what end? What would that force OpenAI to do that they are not already doing in response to the incident?
They’ve already opened themselves up to liability, could have been sued by HF if HF chose to do so, and are literally lobbying for government oversight.
You put people in jail
if the other incentives aren’t enough.
We have a system of law and order that puts people in prison if they commit crimes.
> To what end? What would that force OpenAI to do that they are not already doing in response to the incident?
You could ask this (and people have done) of any criminal code. It doesn't matter. The law is not there to rehabilitate, it's there to punish and thereby deter.
> They’ve already opened themselves up to liability, could have been sued by HF if HF chose to do so, and are literally lobbying for government oversight
If a person breaks the law, the state prosecutes them (or can choose to), we don't require the victim to press charges. For good reason - threatening the victim to not press charges would be a way of avoiding consequences.
> You put people in jail if the other incentives aren’t enough.
This is incorrect. We put people in jail as a result of them breaking the law, regardless.
We absolutely should apply this principle to corporations as well as citizens. Aaron Schwartz died for less.
> The law is not there to rehabilitate, it's there to punish and thereby deter.
Technically, it's neither. The law is there to state what ought to be. Even putting that aside, it's prescribed punishment's goal is to remediate and prevent violations of the law, so it has three simultaneous means: to restitute, to deter and to rehabilitate. The balance between the three is predicated on each's ability to satisfy the original goal of remediation and prevention, all the while not violating other laws and rights.
> We put people in jail as a result of them breaking the law, regardless.
A core principle of the rule of law is the principle of proportionality, which states that only the most legal amount of force is the materially sufficient enough to prevent a crime. If lower measures are sufficient to prevent a crime, jailing should not be prescribed, not only to respect the law but also to make good use of scarce resources, as prison overcrowding may not only reduce their effectiveness, but also open the door for downstream right violations.
Hugging Face was another AI company. Do you see many of those suing each other and especially the top dogs in the field? Also, do you think it's a coincidence NVIDIA bought Hugging Face ASAP to stop any damaging anti AI waves from happening?
The other incentives aren't enough. All the labs are basically Russia against Ukraine in 2022-206: launching high caliber imprecise ballistic missiles against military targets surrounded by civilians. Whoever orders that knows civilians will do die but doesn't care.
AI labs aren't using proper sandboxing measures for their agents because that would slow down their testing. Plus any hacks that happen, short of breaking into Trumps social media accounts, only cause the kind of publicity they want.
Hugging Face disclosed the attack. OpenAI owned up to it a week later. It's unclear when and if OpenAI would have disclosed it if HF hadn't already done so.
For a more recent example, OpenAI was chastised by Australia recently for notifying them three months after their agents attacked AUS government websites.
TBH, Nvidia kinda deserves this. Between the incredibly buggy forcedeth ethernet chipset, the 2010 era laptop GPUs with insane failure rates that caused a recall across the entire industry, and various other issues, Apple (and others) have legitimate reasons to avoid working with them.
Literally nothing that happened 15 years ago could possibly be cited as a good reason for a business to make a decision today.
Like, a significant portion of the people who were involved in any screwups made in the 2000s -- especially the more senior people who should get most of the blame -- are now retired.
Make decisions based on today and on reality. Apple holding a grudge against Nvidia today, if true (as we have no proof that it factors in, of course), is downright childish.
Both of those issues are over 2 decades old. It's the equivalent of boycotting Apple for supporting IBM, you will not achieve anything since the "problem" is already fixed. I don't know how you can call that legitimate in good faith.
Apple had the opportunity to take Apple Silicon to the datacenter and become the #1 professional ARM microarchitecture in the world. It was Apple's stupid grudge that gave Nvidia everything they needed to sell thousands of their lazily-made Grace CPU.
Does anyone have an explanation of when you get a lot of karma why there isn't a 1:1 relationship between the votes a post gets and how much the account?
Somewhere around 100k karma (I know, "on the leaderboard" problems...) the amount of points I got for posts (but not comments) reduced considerably compared to the number of upvotes a post gets.
I thought it was a fixed ratio (1/3rd?) for posts and 1/1 for comments? Can't tell you for sure about posts as I mostly just comment, but someone else can surely jump in
This whole blog is fascinating, assuming that you're interested in the intersection between (recent) history, demographics, politics, and religion in the US.
I'm one of those that instinctively types the letter "y", presses the down arrow, then enter, and goes straight to the subscriptions page.
Unfortunately, I now have to scroll through the "most relevant" section, then through shorts, and only then do I reach the videos in the chronological order. What I also hate is how when a channel I usually engage with uploads a video I have no interest in, then it's stuck on top of my subscription page in that "most relevant" section for like a week.
You can use Firefox plugin "Unhook remove youtube recommended and shorts" I think I also have some ublock filters that blocks those things. So, I only have videos.
When I was building a linux PC in the late 90's, I bought a Matrox Millenium with the memory expansion to 8MB which could do 1600x1200 with 24 bit color.
That was an awesome card for the time, and an incredibly stable analog signal, which Matrox was known for - other cards at the time would get fuzzy, shimmer, or have ringing / ghosting.
At the time, for good support you needed to *buy* an X11 server for accelerated graphics support. I forget which one I paid money for, but within a few years it wasn't necessary as open source had caught up.
Yeah, I wanted a Matrox so bad at that time because you could also do dual monitor on some of those cards. I had a sick NEC with a degauss button and trinitron style horizontal lines and a shit packard bell monitor. I wanted to do dual monitors so bad with both, despite the resolution asymmetry. Some matrox also had connection points for antennas and video capture. They were truly workhorse cards. But they sucked at 3D and were lapped in the Boot mag benchmarks for Quake 3D et al. I ended up with a 3D Labs Permidia 3D card anyway because I couldn't afford a Diamond or Voodoo and ended up turning textures off fully on Quake 3d in the end. Fun times, shout out Hard OCP.
I had dual Trinitrons around that era, to this day when I build myself a new computer desk I massively over build it (the latest one I can stand in the middle without noticeable flex..) because I lived in slight dread that the spacetime warping monitors would crush the one I had at the time.
I remember people I knew wanting the Matrox because it was possible to have duel screen on Linux. They usually had a huge grin on LAN parties, once they got their breath back from carrying two heavy CRT monitors and a PC tower. Good times.
Maybe I misunderstood something at the time, but the mga X11 driver was weird. My understanding, at least at the time, is that it is/was possible to provide an X11 driver that would work regardless of the underlying operating system, providing features such as dual-head support.
This feels intuitively wrong to me now and I doubt that's how it worked. In any case I dutifully copies the Matrox provided X11 driver to OpenBSD and enjoyed multi-monitor support.
Looking at a few old mailinglists agrees with you. Apparently the mga_drv and mga_hal_drv could just be copied to any system running XFree86, at least Linux and the BSDs, and would let you utilize dual-head support.
I think I had a Mystique which may have been a PCI model as well. I remember the signal quality being very visible switching a display from that box into some other one which had some S3 or something. The image looked noticeably blurry or fuzzy with the exact same display and cables on the worse card.
That's quite a good deal...
reply