You’re getting downvoted, but you’re right. This knife cuts both ways, and it far predates llms.

Any non trivial algorithm intended to rank is gameable.

This is the foundation of SEO. It’s how the Donald invaded reddit. It’s the fucking central pillar of modern propaganda dissemination.

They’re going to spend a ton of money to lock themselves into an ongoing arms race.

And if one is morality opposed to this type of pricing practice, I think one becomes morality obligated to do exactly what you described.

And honestly, I think you don’t even have to come out ahead for it to be worth it. If your LLM assessed price would be 1000, spending a full $200 on compute to game and $800 ticket is a wash. You SHOULD spend $300 to get an $800 ticket if that’s where the floor is. Because fuck em.

As a former administrator of a top 100 sub, I’ve seen the absolute unhinged mod power tripping. My a large margin, mods were at least an equal threat to a community as the bad actors in the community.

For this reason, I’ve been a major proponent of a model where groups of users can generate and curate thier OWN collaboratively maintained ban lists, and users can with full visibility OPT IN to different filters.

As well, I think being able to “opt in” to users to see mod removed comments, or “opt out” of a mods comment removals would be cool. I think removed comments remain in the modlog and could be re-injected into what users see given appropriate “opt in” configuration.

Having a decentralized mechanism to manage and opt in to such lists would provide a way to combat power tripping at a grassroots level, as well as allowing broad filtering to let people choose thier experience.

This is all entirely predicated on it being:

A) with full auditable transparency

B) a clear opt-in mechanic

Hard disagreements between curators can easily be handled by forking the lists.

Long story short, I really like the idea of managed content suppression (and ideally un-supression) lists curated by regular users available in an opt-in manner because they act as a counterbalance mechanic to the outsized power that mods hold an INEVITABLY abuse.

But it’s so fucking far from ethical to try and just sneak one in. I genuinely can not understand how much contempt for the agency of other human beings one must have to be able to rationalize such a thing.

The crux of those scenarios you outlined doesn’t hinge on weather or not data is property. Their arguments are that it isn’t YOUR property.

That sounds interesting, especially your view on rulings being unchallengeable. Full disclosure im Canadian so our system has differences.

To me, the root cause of that tension really stems from what I view as an inappropriate use of the judicial as law writers. It’s politically convenient for elected officials to use the cover of some rulings to allow ambiguity to persist in the law.

I think the ultimate cause of this in the US system is the general consensus (which by my read is not the intention of the law) that your constitution is immutable. Rulings on constitutionality are especially important because your constitution is amended so infrequently.

But with any rulings, I think that they should actually be MORE ephemeral, not less, based on the amount of dissent between judges. If a ruling is 5-4, there is a strong argument that the underlying law is unclear. This type of split I think is better resolved by the demand that legislators update or amend the law to add clarity. Judges, as interpreters of the law, are useful in function as a type of “quality check”. A 5-4 ruling, I would argue, amounts to the judicial writing law in the absence of clarity.

A 9-0 ruling? Law is fine. 8-1, probably still pretty good.

Even on a 9-0, there is nothing STOPPING the legislative branch from re-writing law. It is thiers to write and rewrite.

I just think tight splits should trigger some mechanism which demands a law-based resolution to clear up the underlying ambiguity within a specified time frame.

I get why legislators were happy to avoid touching law about things like abortion and let SC rulings be thier cover… they’re elected. It is convenient and safe. But they’re not really doing thier jobs.

Anyhow, that’s my 0.02

Ok, yeah, this sounds reasonable to me.

This is still describing an ultimate judicial authority (aka, a “Supreme court”) just one with an alternative formulation of the conditions for which one serves on the court.

Original guy seemed to imply just getting rid of it as a concept entirely.

Im curious what the alternative to an ultimate judicial authority might look like?

At first I thought it was going to be some kind of play on whatever the hell this trope is, but his was better

Oh yeah you’re right about the headline. I hyperfixated on the graph that was posted which was showing net. My b.

Not necessarily saying you’re wrong… Just pointing out your explanation isn’t making direct comparisons.

This chart is “net”, which is “approves minus dissaproves”, and it’s important that you can respond with “neither approves or didsaproves”.

So you can have a lower approval rating (32) with a higher NET approval rating, if the “neither approves or dissaproves” chunk is larger.

If a higher approval rating results in a lower net (which is what these numbers are), it generally means more “fence sitters” have definitively shifted to flat-out dissaproval.

So, haven’t looked at the data, just noticing your argument seems predicated on a partial understanding of the specific metric this reports on.

I appreciated it too! You weren’t obnoxious, very much the opposite. Curious, patient, thoughtful, well reasoned. It’s obvious to me yours IS a mind that I would want to exercise against. And any discussion rooted in pragmatic outcomes would just be agreement. I think we want the world to be the same.

Ok. I think I need to tap out. I don’t think we can have the same conversation. And that isn’t a judgement or anything about you, or your points, or anything. I think that fundamentally we’re just trying to have two similar but distinct conversations.

There are two conversations: one about exploring and establishing a model of moral evaluation of action, and one about how a hospital should be run, dignity, how to organize a society for the betterment of its members, etc etc. They’re both great conversations. I’ll happily concede that yours is more important.

I keep trying to talk about morality and ethics. To me, it’s the much more interesting conversation. It’s extremely rare to actually get the opportunity to get into moral philosophy, so even fucking roadkill is great.

It’s not that I necessarily disagree with what you’re saying. It’s just that you’re not at all talking about morals and ethics, and each attempt i make to pull you back in is met in failure. Now you’re talking about “fault” which is a completely distinct philosophical concept and “failure of the hospital system” which is not really anything.

Yeah hospitals should treat everyone. I have universal Healthcare. How to run a hospital or a health system is a tedious conversation for me. The moral and ethical discussion and examination of right and wrong of actions when a moral agent is part of a social collective with health support and limited resources is interesting.

If we just talked about your thing… we’d basically just be two people roughly agreeing with each other. Which is fine, it’s just that isn’t really a valuable conversation for either of us. We’re already like 99% aligned, there is nothing material to explore or debate. I can’t offer you anything in that conversation that you don’t already have and vice versa.

Kinda, I think we’re in the same zone, but I feel you’re kinda glancing off some important points, and also bringing in unrelated concepts.

What if the money spent on the mri could have been spent on alzheimers?

Well, if at the time it was reasonable to expect that the investment in MRIs was the most effective thing to do for society that’s fine. That’s just a choice made with reasonable expectations of a positive outcome that ultimately turned out to be suboptimal. It isn’t reasonable to expect that smoking won’t statistically be detrimental to your health. It’s a self-inflicted wound, done knowing this was a likly outcome. This is the critical difference there.

Now, as for unrelated topics, you’ve muddled two distinct ideas: “moral evaluation of actions”, and “evaluation of worthiness to recieve care”.

If you need an ER doctor to pull a dildo out of your ass, but didn’t reasonably expect to demand society to end up having to pay for it, then I see no moral issue, just like if someone forgets thier hair straightener on and thier house lights on fire and the firefighters risk thier lives to rescue you.

If you fully expected to require an ER doctor beforehand, yah, morality issue there. If you light your own house on fire on purpose because you wanted to get carried down a ladder, same deal.

Doesn’t mean you don’t deserve to be helped. Doesn’t imply that you must not, may, or are obligated to feel contempt or whatever. Evaluating the STATE of a moral agent RESPONDING to a moral transgression of another is several steps removed from the ideas of the morality of self-harm in a social collective with finite support resources.

Anyways, long story short… I don’t mean to say that the two cases are morally identical. They’re both actions that needlessly risk degrading the overall health of your society. I think if you want to frame ONE as a moral issue, they BOTH are.

So, to my original point… I don’t know if the public health angle for the moral evaluation is a great one here. I think it’s hard to build a consistent and reliable moral model around.

Yeah, that’s basically it.

Harm is harm. If my recklessness gives you covid, that’s harm. I harmed you. If my wanton habits strain the Healthcare system such that they’re expending money on my emphasima instead of more MRIs, and the lack of MRIs mean the diagnostic delays kept you from finding a brain tumor before it became inoperable, that’s harm too. I harmed you.

It’s comfortable to hide behind layers of abstraction. That’s just morality laundering.

If I give you covid, and you die, that’s bad.

If I give you covid, and you spread it to your grandma and she dies, that’s bad.

If I give you covid, and you give someone else covid, and THEY give it to THIER grandma and she dies, that’s bad.

And if I give… etc etc etc etc. How far down this chain do I gotta go before you say “ah ok, no morality issue there”?

Does it matter if you expose people but none actually get it? Does it matter if people get it, but as a result of the chain reaction nobody dies?

Probably not, right? The irresponsibility of the act has already established that it was wrong, regardless of the dilution along a chain and regardless of the actual outcome. You don’t KNOW what will happen, you just have statistical models.

You might never know WHICH bean made you fart. It doesn’t matter. The collective effect produced a result.

I have the great privilege of living in a society with socialized Healthcare, so these questions do come up from time to time.

The lifetime Healthcare costs for people who have conditions which can be mitigated by lifestyle choices is a real thing. Smoking, being an obvious example much less touchy than obesity. Even if I’m extremely comfortable with the slice of my taxes that go to Healthcare… wouldn’t it be great if we got to spend less on smoking-related issues, and could instead buy more MRI machines. Merely pay for more doctors? Nurses? Expand the treatments we can even offer?

Just because they’re abstract, doesn’t make it any less of a question of morality. I don’t see any moral difference between the contaigen and smoking from the perspective of the personal responsibility of maintaining the overall health of your society. One is just accepted by society.

The idea that you’re morally obligated to maximize your own health to minimize your burden on society usually doesn’t stand up well to follow up questions.

Realistically, the societal health costs of being obese would be statistically higher than fucking roadkill. I think most people would find themselves pausing before suggesting to an obese person that thier obesity is more morally problematic than fucking roadkill.

There is something to health of an individual in a society and morality, it’s pretty hard for me to ignore that intuition. I just don’t know a real formulation which doesn’t introduce more issues to a system of morality than it resolves? Curious if anyone had one.

This is where I’m really fuzzy on the mechanics.

Any authentication is to establish an identity. At what point does that involve getting a unique id associated with an OS installation instance?

My original question is how the hardware id and ngrok get associated at all.

So, after getting frustrated and just going to sign up for an account myself, it looks like ngrok has options to sign is as a Google account, or sign in as a github account.

I’m guessing they picked github, and that’s why Microsoft had any visibility at all on the fact that they accessed a site that isn’t owned by Microsoft.

It still doesn’t answer the question of how the browser knows this id which is set at the os level. It still begs the question of what github authentication looks like differently between operating systems. Obviously a osx or Linux machine wouldn’t have that id at all. Is it part of the initial authentication request? Is there some kind of challenge and response?

This seems the most likely… but still I want clarity on the mechanism. An identifying token defined in the registry is being sent over the wire. That mechanic is pretty substantial, and I’m surprised a bigger fuss hasn’t been made about that. This is pretty far beyond conventional header fingerprinting.

From the article:

Microsoft’s records showed that at that exact same minute, a Windows device carrying GDID g:6755467234350028 had visited the ngrok signup page.

Why does Microsoft have a record that includes both the GDID and a web addresses? I am confused by this mechanism.

Lol party all you want. I’m not OP. I don’t hold absolutist views on the morality of celebrating a death.

But the moral evaluation of an agent celebrating the death of another has absolutely nothing, at all, to do with the “Paradox of Tolerance”. At the first whisper of critical thought applied to the concept, you’ll find that people will always motte-and-bailey to “It is a descriptive paradox and prescribes nothing”. So even if it was conceptually relevant, suggesting the the paradox of tolerance actually “suggests” any action is already a misapplication.

You are free. You don’t need to appeal to anything. The guy was hurting people and now he can’t anymore. You don’t need any to reference any philosopher to give yourself permission to accept 1+1=2.

We cheer when the firefighters extinguish a blaze. We don’t mourn the loss of a jagged edge on a hand railing after a craftsman sands it smooth. I’m pretty comfortable with feeling relief when I land at a toilet when I rreeaallyy have to take a shit. The hangup that you can’t be happy that something that was hurting you is gone is the weird thing. It’s incumbent on anyone to explain why you shouldn’t celebrate, not to justify why you can.

Yeah, I conceded that your call to action was correct.

Just wanted to add colour so people understand the mechanics at play. When you understand them, it lets people evaluate other things, without needing you to tell them what to do.

For example, if your comprehension of these companies is that the companies are acting with the goal of profitability l, they would see something like a fast-track onto an index post IPO as a bid for legitimacy, some kind of ego play.

If you comprehend it as a beast that can only subsist on funding with no viable product, it entirely changes how you comprehend the post IPO index listing desire.