The term "century-bandwidth" is always used in the article as a pre-noun adjective. The term "decade bandwidth" is not used that way. It's the difference between "a well-known author" and "an author who is well known".
There's a distinction to be made between "worse off" and "worse". Socrates was arguing that writing-users would be worse as people, not that they would experience lives they didn't like as much.
Agreed. And I think he was wrong. Literacy allows individual humans to be exposed to and understand far more of the world's culture and knowledge than the conveyance of knowledge through recitation of epic poems would ever have allowed.
Hell, I would never have had the pleasure of arguing with you without it! :)
That's a great takeaway, but may not be practically achievable in the world where
> The average professional in this country wakes up in the morning, goes to work, comes home, eats dinner, and then goes to sleep, unaware that he or she has likely committed several federal crimes that day.
I once saw a talk given by a lawyer on exactly this topic. It was a long time ago, unfortunately I won't be able to find it. Anyway, the takeaway is that there are plenty of Federal laws that are written in such a way that there is incredible room for interpretation by prosecutors. Vagueness and overbroad language to the point that indeed they can come up with some kind of crime pretty much any time they want to.
On the other hand, that kind of thing would not only be enough to bring a case. They use that kind of power to enhance their case against people they know are real criminals. Of course, the more the Justice Department becomes captured by bad actors, the less this applies.
I don’t think very many people charged with federal crimes are actually just innocent bystanders. So even if we grant that people are technically committing three felonies a day (which I don’t) I think the admonition can simply be read “don’t do crimes that a federal prosecutor might actually charge you with.”
If you don't know a reviewer who is trustworthy, how can you find one? There's enormous amounts of slop (both human and generated -- this was already a problem before the last couple years), and when some channel has signal, it attracts more noise generators. The subreddit or review site is only useful until it's well known, and then there's increasing pressure on mods or owners to cash in.
The immediately obvious path here is paying for the reviews or recommendations directly, like Consumer Reports, but there are two major problems with that:
first, the amount consumers can afford to pay doesn't support the additional cost of actually buying all the units and exhaustively testing them, when CR and similar sites are competing against supplier-supported sites, and
second, if you care about specific features or aspects of a product, it's unlikely that the reviewer tested that specifically.
I wish I knew of a good solution. In reality, what's probably going to mitigate in the short term is having your agent scour all the available information and make recommendations, at comparatively great expense.
There are specific prohibitions on certain categories of state laws, like granting titles of nobility, creating non-gold/silver currencies, etc. The federal government cannot constitutionally regulate sex positions, because anything not explicitly covered in the Constitution is reserved to the states, or the people. In that broad grant, however, the states individually can make or avoid making law on any topic.
As others have mentioned, the Supreme Court has frequently worked around the Constitution for reasons that made sense to them at the time, including the original ruling that this one overturns.
>The federal government cannot constitutionally regulate sex positions, because anything not explicitly covered in the Constitution is reserved to the states, or the people.
That being said, there's probably not a constitutional way to enforce laws regulating sex positions. Even if you don't agree that such laws are clearly discriminatory in intent (let alone impact), the privacy violations necessary to prove guilt "Beyond a reasonable doubt" almost certainly violate the Fourth Amendment, and any theory of harm would implicitly (if not explicitly) rest on religion.
This is all assuming you don't accept Griswold as a reasonable constitutional argument that pretty obviously would extend to the kinds of sex people have.
> That being said, there's probably not a constitutional way to enforce laws regulating sex positions.
Right, but until someone gets arrested for this, nobody has standing to challenge the constitutionality of the law itself. It is one of those unenforceable laws. Even biblical law required witnesses (never just one) before being able to prove adultery.
> But it is another thing entirely to share access only with enterprise partners such as Crowdstrike, Cisco, and Microsoft, which are known to have massive security incidents regularly.
The stated purpose of Glasswing is to give infra and security orgs the chance to close holes and improve their security. In that context, it seems odd to call for not providing them access with the justification being that they have security breaches sometimes.
Mythos may or may not itself be opened to the public at some point, but I would charitably expect that Anthropic plans that a future model at least as good as Mythos Preview will be, and the limited release for Mythos is intended to make that eventuality safer by having most of the existing holes patched.
I can understand the frustration with giving away this tool to companies with poorer security practices than their importance warrants, same as frustrations with bailouts. It means they don't really face the full consequences of underinvestment in security. Not to say it's a bad idea, but it does feel unjust.
> If Reagan had violated the Outer Space Treaty - via NASA of all agencies! - how do you imagine it'd have stayed secret over these forty years just past?
While I have no reason to believe this particular escapade, I do expect that there are a thousand such wild stories that have remained secret. Watergate seems obvious and explosive to moderns, but at the time it could easily have gone undiscovered or unremarked. How many other similar scale plots, domestic and international, succeeded or failed without ever being surfaced into the history books? A few? Dozens? Hundreds? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Thousands? Millions? Trillions? Hectoseptisquintillions? "Ignorance is not a datum." Teach that as catechism from 1975 and we might have been spared the "rationalist" scourge altogether.
The "Grapple Leapfrog" is like the peasant railgun, and I think the "real" solution would be a recognition that order of conflict resolution in real time is not the same as ordering linear activities in game time.
The peasant railgun has always annoyed me because real world physics have never been modelled by DnD.
So yes, your peasant railgun spear would fire at the speed of light in reality. But the game simulation doesn't care. The last peasant in the line throws the spear for 1d8 damage.
In my view, the edge cases like so (I think peasant railgun even mentioned in dm handbook) are more of a community problem than the game's. If it can be called a problem, of course - some tables enjoy those shenanigans, some don't.
What players and DMs are forgetting more often than not is the wording somewhere in the start of dm book: dm can overrule any rule. [to facilitate the game mood and direction that the table has agreed upon] [and a larger overarching problem is probably that there's often no such agreement before the game]
Are they not the same users? They're all part of the same org, so it seems likely that accounts for the others are mirrored or auto-created or whatever.
reply