Anthropic and the Government both signed a contract. Anthropic is still abiding the terms of that contract. The Government is demanding that they be able to disobey the contract.
Everything is negotiable, and the Negotiator in Chief clearly likes to pull all the levers he can find, legal or not. (Well, the Supreme Court ruled that it's all legal if he does it, right?)
Implementation details TBH. They want “their boys” to do as said. No respect to agreement or legality as we can see in other dealings. They hold all they cards.
It's not an "implementation detail." Either obeying contract law subjects you to being designated a supply-chain risk, or it does not, and that decision has ramifications outside this "implementation."
Irrelevant. The president holds all the cards, he is above the law and you are a supply chain risk if you ask anything else other than “how high” when you are told to jump. Laws or contracts are things in the past. The most a contract can do is define your limits and obligations, not your rights or privileges,
If the president can come to your house and burn it down, do we just throw up our hands and say, well he holds all the cards, oh well. Or do we call that out as being a bad thing?
> The president holds all the cards, he is above the law
Even though it seems that way, he really isn't, even now. Many of his EOs and other actions have been struck down in court, and while compliance with court orders has been far from perfect (another alarming trend), Trump has not actually gotten away with doing everything he wants to do.
I do fear for the future of this country, for rule of law, and the democractic norms that degrade day by day. But Trump is not actually above the law, as much as he wants to be.
You got downvoted a bit but I upvoted. You're clearly being descriptive in your statements, not prescriptive. I tend to agree that this is how things are now.
Our country is not being run by the rule of law right now.
Well, that's not the way context works and it's dishonest BS. You wrote "You got downvoted a bit but I upvoted. You're clearly being descriptive in your statements, not prescriptive." -- no, they were prescriptive from the start, and the prescription and the goalpost moving and wool-over-eyes pulling is why they were downvoted.
> That said, this business model has historically proven effective for companies such as IBM.
In some ways. Less so in others.
For products that get commoditized for home use, the "business focused" high-margin solutions generally lose out to the commoditized solutions focused on end consumers in the long term.
An almost bigger irony is that most of those complaining would almost certainly have lamented in the past about leaders sending their nations poor to fight instead of going after each other directly. But now "that's illegal" (not just the war, but specifically the decapitation strikes)
You should question this and advocate for yourself. The important number is total lifetime exposure to LDL (actually apoB, but doctors aren't routinely testing that yet). The arterial damage is cumulative. You shouldn't wait until you are at high risk of cardiac events to take action. The time to slow down the progression is now.
I'm just replying based on taking your comment at face value. LDL of 150 is very high and living with that for many years is very damaging. Obviously it's something between you and your doctor, I'm just encouraging you to consider and get reasoning from your doctor about whether this approach is really best for your health.
It's a borderline kinda thing. He said if it was consistently in the 160s he would probably recommend them. My previous doctor was basically in the same camp but had me taking blood tests every 3 months for a year to see if it was stuck there.
You are making a mistake in thinking that Trump thinks of these things in political terms. Trump sees a charismatic and popular politician and he wants to associate with them on that basis alone, because Trump has a deep psychological need to be liked. Mamdani understands his psychology and is able to exploit it well by playing his own attributes to his advantage.
Politically, it's not like Trump tolerates dissent within the Republican party, he constantly threatens and berates anyone who shows defiance into submission. It's precisely because Mamdani is not in his tent and not really much of a threat to his power that he is willing to deal with him that way.
Red Hat noticed that something was off, but there was a new version published by "Jia Tan" that fixed the warnings and the performance issue, so it's not really clear that the original version would have still gotten as deep of an investigation as would have been needed to find the issue.
It's possible though. The noise around it did at least put Freund on alert and we should be very glad both that "Jia Tan" made the mistakes they made originally and that Freund followed up on their gut feeling
The irony being that 'Jia Tan' went out of their way to ensure the backdoor was very well obfuscated, to the point it inadvertently caused bugs and slight, but noticeable, performance issues.
One wonders whether the xz backdoor would have been discovered if slightly less obfuscation was used.
The whole xz incident is a pretty strong argument to:
a) change practice from including binary (opaque) test files themselves to human-readable scripts and tooling that build test files on-demand,
b) raise suspicion of any binaries included in open source projects, and
c) create much more scrutiny around dependencies of 'highly scrutinised' packages like OpenSSH.
It's a shame that there isn't a foundation (that I'm aware of) that can donate time and effort of vetted developers to foundational open source projects like xz.
It did get mentioned - in the context of the upstream change to dynamically load those libraries being a threat to the hack's viability which may have caused "Jia Tan" to rush and accidentally make mistakes in the process.
They say "an open-source developer requests to remove the dependency that links xz to OpenSSH" while showing https://github.com/systemd/systemd/pull/31550 on screen, zoomed and focused so the word "systemd" does not appear.
They never once utter the word "systemd", anywhere in the script... isn't that strange for such a key dependency?
It probably is because of video length, mentioning systemd would mean explaining init system which could add another 5 min runtime. At least they showed it in diagram of dependencies.
From what I can find, the standard weight limit for a truck in 20 tons per axle (less when multiple axles are close together).
In contrast, the average weight for a car is a bit under 4 tons (even for SUVs). Even a pickup truck is under 5.4 tons. Since these have 2 axles, that comes out to every class except loaded freight trucks having under 2.7 tons per axle on average. So a freight truck acting at the legal limit (without tandem axles) would be over 7.4 times as heavy per axle as a passenger pickup truck. Applying the 4th power law, this means a single maximally loaded truck causes about 3000 times (300,000%) as much damage as an average pickup truck; and 10,000 times (1,000,000%) as much as an average SUV.
In contrast, the difference in damage caused by an average SUV and an average sedan is only about 40%
It’s extremely super linear, supposedly 4th power of axle weight. So it doesn’t make sense to argue over the relative size of mice when there are elephants around.
reply