What is needed is accountability and transparency. Accountability is criminal charges. Transparency is warning labels on products similar to cigarette warnings. This is digital assault and needs to be treated that way.
When people believe they are being watched they act differently. Essentially you are coercing them. People need a reasonable sense of privacy to be able to act freely so, to me, this means that privacy is a central requirement of freedom.
There are legitimate reasons for some ability to conduct surveillance, but without a cost any surveillance method becomes mass surveillance. That cost must be human, it must scale in human time, or it turns into mass surveillance since without a human cost all it takes is one person and one button to watch one or a hundred thousand people.
Technologies like flock have no human scaling cost. They run 24/7/365 and make surveilling one person or hundreds of thousands of people as easy as pushing a button. There is no human scaling cost to them. That means that all it takes to abuse a massive portion of the population is one person and one action. The probability of abuse, abuse which harms a population as a whole, therefore approaches 100% no matter how 'good' the controls are on it. All mass surveillance technologies have this fundamental flaw. The consequence of that abuse is that people, rightfully, will believe that they are being watched, legitimately or not, 24/7/365. The harm here is clear. A society that is under mass surveillance is a society that is having its basic freedoms continuously attacked.
Mass surveillance, surveillance without a direct human cost that scales with the level of surveillance, is not compatible with any definition of 'freedom'. Or, to sum all this up, every argument about how a system like this could be made better to limit harm is a red herring because technologies like Flock have a fundamental flaw that is incompatible with any definition of a free society.
'The first clean sheet airliner to be flown in any category. electric or not, in the US in the last 18 years'
This is the statement that matters and why I think electric is a huge deal. We can't get new designs into the air. It costs too much and takes too long. Electric has the potential to bring the design cycle back to something reasonable. Electric engines, and the supporting systems around them, are just so much simpler so there is so much less to certify. Once we really start designing for electric, and iterating on those designs, I think we will start seeing massive gains very rapidly.
The 737-Max is only not a clean-sheet only because the selling point is pilots don't need to retrain, which is a competitive advantage when selling to airlines.
Lots of down votes on this but it is a legitimate question. The goal is likely to have the majority of flight off of batteries. That being said, the total weight of the emergency fuel plus generators is likely far less than the weight of the extra batteries they would haul around for the safety margin they need. So they end up lighter and more capable AND don't need to burn fuel. That being said, I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't start the generators during critical phases so they may end up using some fuel for a flight, but not much. Total guess on that though.
> That being said, I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't start the generators during critical phases
I somewhat doubt that. Part of the advantage of the design is that the generators don't need to be sized as big enough to power take off, climb and a potential go-around on landing. They only need to be sized as big enough for cruising.
So powering them up during critical phases wouldn't help with safety. If anything, normal operating procedures might actually require shutting them down during critical phases.
What this does mean is that the batteries need to be reasonably full when it comes into land, possibly as high as 50%. And most go arounds will require immediately powering up the generators, so it probably needs to be fuelled for all but the shortest flights.
> That being said, I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't start the generators during critical phases so they may end up using some fuel for a flight, but not much.
I would guess the opposite. Many parts in a turbine engine are "lifetime limited" by number of engine starts. That is, you are required to tear down the engine and replace certain parts after a certain number of engine cycles.
That makes the economics of the turbine hybrid radically different if you need to start it every time you land vs. only the rare cases where you need to dip into fuel reserves.
For example, the PT6A (a common 500-1000hp turboprop) requires the turbine and compressor disks to be replaced every 16,000 cycles. That's about 5 years of commercial service at 4x round trips per day. But if you only start the engine once in every 10 flights, now those components (theoretically) last for 50 years of flying.
> vs. only the rare cases where you need to dip into fuel reserves.
There aren't that many existing flight routes that will fit into the 125 mile range (though the existence of this plane might change that), so I suspect we will see most of these planes go into service on slightly longer routes. So they will probably still need one cycle per flight.
Though... The video isn't quite clear if the 125 miles is what they can fly without starting the turbines or if it's what they can fly without needing the turbines ready to act as an emergency reserve. I actually suspect it's the later and this aircraft can make it to 200+ miles without starting the turbines.
Where I live, there aren't that many 125 mile flights, but there are a lot of 200 mile fights.
I also suspect the turbines are sized so that only need to start one of the two turbines on most flights, which would extend lifetime a lot. Ideally the turbines would be sized so that one is enough for cruising, and with two you can actually charge the batteries after a go-around (enough to enable a second and third go-around)
muse-spark-1.3-contributor. Say what you want and Meta, changing the pricing to explicitly say 'we train on this and value it this much' is what every model provider should do. As a side note, it is now completely obvious how much stealing my tokens for training is worth to model providers. I avoid/pay extra/try my best to make sure I am not getting trained on but it seems like it keeps popping up that I missed a setting somewhere. This is the first quantifiable number I have seen out there from a model provider. Maybe it can help in lawsuits to quantify the damages for copyright/other things?
This has been my hunch for a while about all the discourse of "OpenAI/Anthropic subscription pricing is unsustainable!!"
We understand theoretically they're taking our data, but yeah, that data is vital to the entire business plan of all these companies and WAY more valuable than people are giving credit for.
I checked up on Mistral recently and saw their Claude-alike coding harness is using GLM now, whatever it takes to keep users on their platform and feeding them data.
This is also really smart business wise imo. For hobby projects, toys, quick scripts you don't really mind if they train on it. It's a win-win. Once you get used to the tools and you want to do more serious business you are more likely to buy a more expensive sub from them.
I think if Idiocracy were re-released today about the only thing it would change would be that misinformation would be the major driver at the start. Pretty much everything else holds, including predicting the rise of Crocks.
Not a mac/UMA discussion point, but is it time to add additional, installable, DDR5 to GPUs? I can see this as a win/loose. PCIe 5x16 is close to maxing out the bandwidth available from high end dual channel DDR5 now, but not quite. I'm not a hardware person but I suspect putting it on the card could lead to significant performance improvements over using system ram so allowing systems like this, where MOE weights are shed, to get even higher performance than just adding that DDR5 to the system. Bigger models become closer to reality and it provides more of a pathway for developing technologies that take advantage of it. Of course the loose side is that you just put a lot of specialized ram on a card instead of into the system where it could be used for other things. I could see a place for a 16GB card with 64GB(or more) of DDR5 especially if we start seeing MOE and similar technologies really start being designed for this concept.
Probably not with DIMM modules, as longer traces mean higher latency (speed of light is ~30 cm in 1ns). GDDR typically uses larger buses (more wires) for higher bandwidth, even more so for HBM, so DIMM would be hard. Maybe CAMM would be up to the task?
It certainly seems feasible from an engineering perspective (though it does make cooling harder), at least for mid-range, not H100-class HW, but it prevents market segmentation, so EOMs may not be too interested (as long as no competitor does it).
The answer here is simple: If you submit a content strike you must provide a bond. If the content strike is reversed the bond is used to pay damages. The argument of 'people must review' is really just an argument of cost. The amount of content on the web makes it impractical to pay that upfront but a bond makes it manageable.
It is not a legal process. It is Google's process designed to minimize their involvement to the maximum degree possible.
When some random person copyright strikes your YT account you have no rights because it isn't based on the law. Its the equivalent of someone going to the manager of Starbucks and falsely saying you are harassing them, then the manager tells you to leave or they'll call the police. One private party told another private party you are a bad person and the private party in control punished you.
If memory serves the whole system came about way back because the big media companies and record companies got together to sue YT after google acquired them. So you might say the system was designed to let purported copyright holders act arbitrarily on purpose.
In the Starbucks example wouldn't there theoretically be a defamation claim against the person who lied about you - just with absurdly small damages that aren't worth pursuing.
Yes that is technically true. In theory you might be able to get some damages from them and even from Starbucks. But Starbucks would be within their rights to ban you permanently.
You could try to go after YouTube but expect to be permabanned from all of Google. You probably signed away your right to sue anyhow with some YT/Google TOS update.
Looks like some interest in this idea so I will refine it a little. The core question is about the bond value. There are some competing things here: A small time creator should be able to defend themselves against DMCA attacks on them (they get a bond on a reversed claim) and still be able to send notices against others without undue cost. Similarly, big content creators should be able to defend their work. I think the answer here is that the bond goes up the more content strikes you submit. Small creators essentially operate for free with just a few sent out, large troll farms have to post very big bonds. This works for small creators, they could receive big bonds if someone like MS incorrectly smacks them. Of course the bond rate could also go up by number of successful reversals too but that would just lead to account churn.
The essential idea here is that there is a real cost per DMCA notice that turns into a reward for those incorrectly accused. As the total number of DMCA notices go up the more bond money is floating around ready to pay those harmed by the system. DMCA takedown agents now have a real incentive to get it right. The better they are the more money they save. The trick is to set the bond high enough to turn it into a real value prop. The only thing missing, I think, is the upward pressure on the base bond. I think that should be set by the global ratio of successful to reversed takedowns. If the industry is spamming the bond goes up and payments go up. If the industry is policing itself the bond goes down.
The answer is not simple. Your solution means small creators are even more disfavored than they already are by trolls stealing their work; trolls are already heavily favoured because small creators must dox themselves to file a claim, and now you're adding in payment burdens too. Any amount large enough for a corporation to care about at all will be too large for an independent creator. Now not only trolls but corporations have an incentive to steal from small creators, because small creators will not be able to defend their copyright, essentially granting it to the corp for free.
The actual answer is to tear the entire fucking system down because it only exists to serve megacorporations, and start fresh, but there's nothing simple about that.
Just make the bond a % of the entity's revenue. Like that (apocryphal?) story about how Nokia CEO got speeding ticket of several million dollars in Finland, due to the ticket being a % of income.
Although I suppose a fixed % would limit how many claims you can file, which might be an issue for megacorporations who actually deal with lots of infringement -- although it would definitely reduce spurious claims.
Hmm, maybe coming up with a good law is actually hard.
Just a token fee like $5 would discourage spamming claims, though it does make fighting against re-uploads of the same content harder (the power balance isn't too bad for the play store where there is an entry fee for publishers as well).
The GP is not saying the small entity pays the bond. The GP is saying the big entity that wants the content taken down (in this case Microsoft and TracerAI) pays the bond, and forfeits it if a counter notice is issued.
Big companies regularly rip off small creators. Even if the copyright theft is incredibly obvious, a big company has the funds to drag out the legal proceedings for years. Do you have that kind of money?
You do understand that corporations aren't the only entities who produce content and file copyright claims, right? Independent artists, authors, developers, etc. all need to be able to file claims too, and they're already much more vulnerable. I hate the current copyright regime as much as anyone, but the solution can't be one that makes it even less helpful for independent creatives and even more abusable by corporations.
It is not that society needs to be prisoner of small creators, every time there is some regulation the small creator and hobbyist come to the rescue cmon
So society should be a prisoner to corporations instead, giving them even more power because you didn't think through how your brilliant new regulation could be misused by malicious actors? Cmon, indeed.
This is cruel. This is stupid. But more broadly important to this group, this will continue to push skilled workers out of the US and into friendlier countries. It will continue to erode our soft power since countries will have fewer economic ties with the US and fewer personal ties to the US. There are no redeeming aspects to this that I can see. This is a bad move in the short term and the long term.
reply