That’s a Dick move.
Overzeetop
joined 2 years ago
It’s not code. It’s a matrix of associative conditions. And, specifically, it’s not a fixed set of associations but a sort of n-dimensional surface of probabilities. Your prompt is a starting vector that intersects that n-dimensional surface with a complex path which can then be altered by the data it intersects. It’s like trying to predict or undo the rainbow of colors created by an oil film on water, but in thousands or millions of directions more in complexity.
The complexity isn’t in understanding it, it’s in the inherent randomness of association. Because the “code” can interact and change based on this quasi-randomness (essentially random for a large enough learned library) there is no 1:1 output to input. It’s been trained somewhat how humans learn. You can take two humans with the same base level of knowledge and get two slightly different answers to identical questions. In fact, for most humans, you’ll never get exactly the same answer to anything from a single human more than simplest of questions. Now realize that this fake human has been trained not just on Rembrandt and Banksy, Jane Austin and Isaac Asimov, but PoopyButtLice on 4chan and the Daily Record and you can see how it’s not possible to wrangle some sort of input:output logic as if it were “code”.
It’s a weird dynamic. I feel no remorse eating pork or beef. I know the process, I raised farm animals as a kid. BUT, I know someone working on genetically modified pigs for human organ transplants and that makes me somehow uneasy.
Don’t you be doing Jen and Kira dirty like that.
Congress threatened to stop the program: “ The biggest objection came from New York Republican Congressman Andrew Garbarino, who said the program would “end up hurting consumers.”
After that, Fannie didn’t take long to abandon the program.”
Authorization comes from Congress. No matter how useful a program is, Congress still has to fund it.
It makes almost none of it better (we agree on that). But they actually followed some sort of evidentiary procedure. If we’re to be outraged at incompetence and exceeding authority we should know the rules and hammer where they are explicitly wrong and not make stuff up.
Mine was a trade up from std pro to max, plus a longer tele (and maybe 1/3 of a battery). DD went from the 12 to the 13 for $28 on the same trade promo.
Even ignoring the battery value, from a residual value basis a years’ newer phone is worth about $50-75 even on the 3rd or 4th year out, so the bare resale value for both was a wash or better. If I’m getting upgraded for almost nothing out-of-pocket, long term, I’m going to take it.
From the quoted text it sounded like they did get a warrant to view. I think making a copy so as not to alter or taint the original is standard procedure, if not required, for evidentiary purposes.
I’ll trade when the money is right. iPhone 12 Pro-13 ProMax cost me $60. Yes it was a year old, but for a fresh battery and better tele lens it was worth it. This year I upgraded to a 15 Pro. I get nothing but a new battery and a C charging port (faster processor means little to me), but it cost me only $95 net - less than a battery replacement. For all the limitation of the Apple ecosystem and over-priced hardware, it gets exceptionally favorable trade-in pricing.
Iirc, iPhones reset / overwrite the encryption key so it would take substantial effort for someone to see how many steps I take in a day or to find my vacation photos. It’s probably easier to steal info from my iCloud backup at Apple.
It’s not insane if you’re on the consumer side. If you’re in the corporate bonus structure, or receiving campaign donations from a corporate sponsor that are necessary to keep your position of power it makes complete sense.
More importantly, how long until I can guarantee a 51% chance of solving every bitcoin block?