And while you can beat low margin with scale, there is the famous joke "we lose money on every sale, but make it up in volume".

If you scale a low margin operation, you can become giant. If you scale a loss making operation, you go bankrupt.

The subscription is the loss leader to show you how good it is. And people think it's good and worth paying for.

There is some reason to think their margins will improve, also: they couldn't really plan for the capacity they've needed so far this year, so they're paying through the nose for it. That's fine because they can pass the cost onto customers and give a more reliable service at cost. But in a few years, they should be able to get those costs under control (presuming some ops excellence. Something Google has in spades)

Ideally fair use would be defended, it is the law of the land, and when a takedown notice was emitted maliciously, with known bad faith, the actor that did that would have to pay for the amount of time that the legal content was down.

At least that’s how I read the comment and I agree.

Why would fair use law go away? Fair use for the purpose of critique is maybe the best & most favored defense of fair use by the Copyright Office, and ties together necessary copyright exceptions for supporting Free Speech and journalism, among other good reasons. Things also seem to be moving in the opposite direction with recent precedent deeming some AI uses transformative fair use. YouTube has done more that it’s fair share of playing fast and loose with copyrights for a profit, but YouTube, and more broadly Google, depends on fair use for massive portions of their business. I don’t see fair use going anywhere anytime soon.

I've read criticism of media I've never even heard of (and learned some insightful things), so clearly the original IP isn't always the pull, and even if it was I don't understand how talking about something suddenly means I need to pay the person who owns the intellectual property of the thing I'm talking about. I think it would make criticism less likely and put us in an even worse situation than today, when large corporations often use the DMCA to take down clearly fair-use criticism. Just a further stifling of speech.

Also, fair use has been around since the eighteenth century, even if in the US the US 1976 Copyright Act made fair use statutory.

And the US has proven me correct over and over again in that assessment. Will watch with great pleasure the brain drain your country will face, and I honestly hope your economy will completely collapse.

The U.S. passed restrictive immigration laws in 1921. The foreign born population dropped to under 5% by 1970 (compared to 15% today). The decade on either side of that was a golden age for Silicon Valley.

Google at least, I think people would say there was a period of near-universally believing it was a good thing, and an immigrant was a co-founder.

It definitely shaped our society. And if you think it's for the worse, might that suggest college-educated Anglo-adapting immigrants are more dangerous to us than the ones right-wingers are telling us to focus on?

That is your “good” immigrant. He is the right winger.

How do you know the unsafe operation is safe? What are the preconditions the code block has? Write it down, review it, test it.

I like type checking and other compile time checks, but sometimes they feel very ceremonial. And all of them are inference based, so they still relies on the axiom being right and that the chain of rules is not broken somewhere. And in the end they are annotations, not the runtime algorithm.

Yes, which is precisely why I write in Rust, because the compiler errs less than I do.

On the other hand, when you're relying on your ability to "actually write quite good C code"...you'd better hope that you have not made an error there. In practice, some of the most widely used C libraries in the world still seem to have bugs like this, so I don't really understand why you'd think that's a winning strategy.

This is so true. And the beauty is that with algorithms, we don't even need to know much about the entropy to be able to extract it.

There is the Von Neumann method of generating an unbiased coin from a biased coin. Of throwing it twice, and checking if you got HT or TH. And completely discarding all HH or TT results. It doesn't matter if the coin you are using is 20% or 80%, the result will be a true 50/50.

There are more modern algorithms that can be even better (in that they need less coin tosses if you have a very unbalanced coin).

And then there is modern cryptographic hashing. Feed it all the bits you can. Collisions end up only happening in the real world if every single one of those bits is identical. So if you have actual entropy being fed, that cannot be controlled, predicted, or replicated, modern cryptography tells you that the end result is unique.

This blew my mind. Thank you!

I had to think about it a bit, so for anyone scratching their head right now trying to figure it out, consider it this way:

what matters is the ordering, of heads-then-tails, or tails-then-heads.

It doesn't matter that it's biased one way or the other, if you keep flipping pairs until you get a result with two different values, it's a 50/50 chance whether the less-likely result comes first, or second.

You might only have a 20% chance of any particular pair having a tails (for example), but in the cases where you do have a tails, it's a 50/50 chance that it comes first or second.

Assume each flip is independent and the bias remains same in each flip.

Let

  P(H) = p,
  P(T) = 1 - p.

  P(HH) = p^2,
  P(HT) = p(1 - p),
  P(TH) = (1 - p)p,
  P(TT) = (1 - p)^2.

  P(HT or TH) = 2p(1 - p).

  P(HT | HT or TH) = p(1 - p) / (2p(1 - p)) = 1/2,
  P(TH | HT or TH) = (1 - p)p / (2p(1 - p)) = 1/2.

It's just p(H)p(T).

And p(H)p(T) = p(T)p(H), thus 2*p(H)p(T) = 2p(1-p).

  P(HT) = P(H)P(T) = p(1 - p)

That is a conditional probability:

  P(HT | HT or TH)

If: p(H)p(T) = p(T)p(H)

And: p(H)p(T) + p(T)p(H) = 1

Then: p(H)p(T) = p(T)p(H) = 0.5

Same, of course, holds for flipping it multiple times. But there you get more than Head or Tail (binomnk(n, k)).

Just want to point out, that one is actually doing the experiment with a biased coin, then one must ignore all pairs.

e.g in case a coin which is heavily biased, say .9 H and .1 T. One should start with ignoring all the HH pairs, and start only at odd index. Lest, one picks a value like HHHHT (in the case the 2nd HH pair was not skipped, instead they greedily picked up the first HT, which will make the experiment HT biased).

There does exist flatpak, everything that would benefit from a stable ABI could use that.

And it is meant to feel meandering cause that is how this period feels for people trying to study it. There are many cases that we don't know what happened. We just know that the people were killed/disappeared. The perpetrators were never brought to Justice. We are not even sure who the specific perpetrators are in a lot of cases.

This is how the Brazilian military dictatorship operated. There are people in Brazil who want to go back to this period. They say that everything was better. The truth is that a lot of stuff that was bad, was so bad that we don't even have the records to properly reconstruct what happened.

Yeah, so I had to lookup the leg after watching the movie. My interpretation was that it wasn't actually really surrealism. They juxtapose that scene with the lady reading from the newspaper about the attacking leg as if it was real. The reason I think this supports the "from the future journalist's perspective" interpretation is that those were legitimate articles ran, while there were serious cases not being reported on things like people going missing by the dictatorship. I think they included it to show the absurdity of what information was available and what information wasn't in the papers from that time. Also because of the lore of it all.

Reminds me of something.

And then for other democrats, the feeling when you have an unpopular president like Biden was seen at the time is to go anti estabilishment. But Kamala was Bidens VP. She couldnt run an anti estabilishment campaign when she was part of the estabilishment.

If there had been a primary, whoever was the candidate, even if it was Kamala herself, would have been much better positioned for the General Election.

I've never seen any evidence that thinking requires such a thing.

And honestly I think theoretical computational classes are irrelevant to analysing what AI can or cannot do. Physical computers are only equivalent to finite state machines (ignoring the internet).

But the truth is that if something is equivalent to a finite state machine, with an absurd number of states, it doesn't really matter.

I think it's exceedingly improbable that we're any more than very advanced automatons, but I like to keep the door ajar and point out that the burden is on those claiming this to present even a single example of a function we can compute that is outside the Turing computable if they want to open that door..

> Physical computers are only equivalent to finite state machines (ignoring the internet)

Physical computers are equivalent to Turing machines without the tape as long as they have access to IO.