He is not imposing anything on anyone. He has the same right to express his opinions as anybody else has, and his platform clearly allows everyone else to do the same - in contrast with what the previous executives of Twitter did.
That sounds a lot like copium to justify an authoritarian action by the state because it benefits you personally.
Notably, they said "the science" which has nothing to do with science. "The science", as I've seen it used, is almost always an appeal to authority and has very little to do with the scientific method.
So maybe their statement is accurate: people aren't mad at science, they're mad at the science -- the authoritarian technocratic regime that locked everyone inside for a year and force-fed them a "safe and effective" vaccine the next.
Not sure how that was your conclusion. To be clear: I'm a fan of vaccines. I'm not a fan of a rushed experimental vaccine forced on a populace through government and corporate tyranny.
But it was just like that, depending on the country! I was forced to "vax" by my employer. The police would have come into my home if I would have for example had people over, since that was illegal. It was illegal for me to go outside for a walk - alone. And I would have been sued for that. I was not allowed in some doctors offices - although I pay about 1K per month. And so on...
The last time humanity forced something like that, the world later came together and executed those in charge. And I'll never stop being furious that this is now being swept under the rug. Inhuman crimes happened
I'm getting various numbers from different sources on this. Some sources claim 70% of the US population are vaccinated, some say as high as 81%. Whichever it is, it was a minority of people that had the ability to opt out. I suspect a significant number of those who got the vaccination did so under duress. The coercion used in this campaign often threatened peoples' livelihoods and ability to travel, among other things.
Personally, I was lucky enough to have a job which did not require vaccination, and I was able to avoid anything that required a vaccination card up until restrictions were lifted. I'm grateful the "vaccine passport" was never brought to fruition during this period of time. I think they realized they pushed too hard with that one and pulled back. I suspect they'll try again eventually though.
Many people would lose their jobs if they refused by "opting out", and many people did. Kissing your job goodbye, in a pandemic, where the government forcefully shuttered many business, was not some free choice to make.
That was my first interaction with you. I just wanted to point out how it was financially forced for many people. Being here, I suspect you, like I, had a choice. It's really bending reality to say everyone had that choice in any sort of equal capacity. Again, you should really look into this more. Your experience, clearly, does not match the reality of many others.
Don't ignore the rest. To save you effort, I'm a totally new person. Don't just apologize. You didn't acknowledge completely valid points.
Your misrepresentation deserves attention as well. Weasel arguments like this are so annoying to observe.
'Be the whole bitch.' I want you to realize you were on shit ground to begin with. The wrong person getting your ire is a distraction.
You went off on the slightest bit of hyperbole. The claim wasn't wrong, people were forced by the government and their employers to comply.
If you didn't want to suddenly risk your life being turned over, you had to participate in a grand social experiment. Individual risk assessment be damned.
Every reader deserves an apology for you, and now, me.
I'll close with an anecdote, why I care so much. I'm the un-monitored control group. I had absolutely no risk to the disease. Young, able bodied, living/working remotely in the woods for years.
Yet, to maintain employment and frankly, my standard of living, I had to endure additional risk. Because someone else has risk? How did this help?
I can't edit now, but to add/clarify... When I say no risk - I really mean it. I have receipts. I was a shut-in before it was cool. I participate in society only as much as I have to - employment, bills, voting, whatever.
To be direct: I don't generally go out and do things. I sleep, work, and pay. Complete subsistence.
My frustration comes from the imposition when I've already moved myself so far away, in every sense.
To be sporting I contracted it/recovered before the vaccine. As you can probably tell, I'm not worried about my own outcome. It wasn't that bad.
I could've handled the immaculate infection received in isolation. Without that, and being pulled back into society for the jab, I couldn't have infected anyone.
The point is plenty of us couldn't opt out, when really, we could - with the powers that be having the slightest bit of grace, tact, or whatever.
That's the problem. It was ham-fisted. That's politics. Once objectified, reason went out the window. End of.
An excellent case for the road to hell being paved with good intentions. This isn't singular; others and myself have all told 'nitwit005' similar stories.
You know that mRNA vaccines have been in development, testing, and use long before COVID happened? that's part of the reason it could be deployed so fast.
Yes, I'm aware of mRNA and its history. I'm also aware of Moderna and the purpose of their
existence. The covid vaccine was the first approved and widely deployed mRNA vaccine, and R&D is a far cry from injecting such a substance into human beings on the scale of billions.
I'm pretty sure I test my software more than they tested that particular vaccine before deployment, and I personally don't like the idea of being a guinea pig.
That's disappointing. I thought it was a proper stylesheet update for a second. I've been using this[1] user stylesheet for a while now. See the github repo[2] for the amount of insanity required to make this work (it breaks every now and then when wikipedia updates their html/css).
I'm not sure why people keep misidentifying the problem as "lack of funding". Lasse Collin was doing fine as a maintainer up until Jia Tan showed up. He was psy-op'd into believing there was a crowd of angry people eagerly awaiting a new release when there wasn't. No real person was unhappy with the way he'd been maintaining xz.
In fact, there was no issue with Lasse Collin maintaining xz as a single individual, and creating a false impression to the contrary was the primary tactic used by the antagonist to gain access to the project.
I'm not saying money would absolutely fix the issue, but I could also see it helping. If Collin was approached by a government that said "Hey, the thing you're maintaining is important, if you want, we'll fund 2 additional full-time maintainers that can contribute based on your guidance", maybe Collin would be in a better position to ensure the Jia Tan contributions were genuine and proper.
There's probably a number of things that could improve the situation. Mindlessly throwing money and government at a problem almost never improves things.
Which government bureaucracy decides how much Lasse Collin should be paid? Based on what metrics? This is a giant can of worms.
If I was the maintainer and was approached by government telling me, "hey, here are two folks who're going to be two new full-time maintainers and we're funding them" I certainly would be worried.
Similarly, if the government approached me and said "Here, embed this black-box binary into your build process", I'd be worried too. But luckily, no one suggested this, nor what you wrote about :)
IIRC the xz package was maintained by an individual in a place with at least some socialized healthcare, but correct me if I'm wrong (I'm not trying to be snarky here, please do).
Okay, sure, but rather than trying to solve a problem by throwing money at it (or worse, trying to solve it with government intervention), maybe it's better to think of other mitigations.
For example, maybe developers need to be made aware of potential psyops by attackers (the publicity surrounding this issue probably made some progress on that front).
I’ve been in similar burnout situations, and the difference between work and side projects did not matter to my mental health. The money was not an issue, it was headspace and fatigue.
I find it very strange that OpenAI would post this in the middle of a lawsuit. Shouldn't all of these emails come out in discovery anyway? Publishing this only benefits OpenAI if they're betting on the case never reaching discovery. It seems like they just want to publish very select emails which paint a certain picture.
Also, DKIM signatures are notably absent, not that we could verify them anyway since the emails are heavily redacted.
If they just waited until discovery, it would be Musk's lawyers that control the narrative, choosing which parts of the emails to focus on publicly, which to ignore and what story to paint around it.
As you say, this way, they get to control the narrative. Nothing strange at all.
From what I can tell, Musk's lawsuit doesn't have a much of chance in the first place. I don't think he expects to win, it seems to be more a tool in Musk's own media push, and while I wouldn't bet on it, there is absolutely a chance it won't reach discovery.
I think OpenAI have quite wisely decided that the real battle here is the court of public opinion. They know it's possible to win the court case but lose in the eyes of the public. And they know that Musk has a lot of previous experience (and success) in the this battleground.
OpenAI might think they're winning a PR battle by shaping a narrative here, but they are now locked into this narrative, possibly to their detriment in court. Just seems like a bad idea. I find it odd that their lawyers wouldn't steer them clear of something like this.
> I think OpenAI have quite wisely decided that the real battle here is the court of public opinion.
They've failed to win me over. As far as I can tell, their attempted PR victory hinges on a single email with a one-word reply from Musk. Their own emails are far more damning as they give a detailed explanation of why they believe AI should not be open.
To an observer who already dislikes Musk, I'm sure it's a PR win. To someone neutral or someone who dislikes both parties, it's a PR disaster.
Nowhere, and I criticize it every time. I've even gone to the lengths of trying to find DKIM keys for published emails in the past[1].
But at least those emails were un-redacted. To spell that out for you: in a highly-charged, highly-contentious political setting, emails were published un-redacted and theoretically verifiable with DKIM. No such possibility exists for OpenAI's blog post.
It's only strange if you think the lawsuit has merit, and I'm yet to find anyone credible who thinks it does. If you believe the lawsuit is just a vexatious move to attack OpenAI then it makes perfect sense to just fight it as a PR battle.
I always took that to mean, "don't come up with your own cryptographic schemes", not "don't implement well-specified and standardized algorithms which are accompanied by a reference implementation and test vectors".
Do you maintain any C projects? Personally, I tried using zig for its build system (which can also compile C and whose build files are written in zig). One of the benefits of this was easy cross-compilation to all major platforms.
It might not be a _real_ use-case or anything, but writing a `build.zig` file for an existing C project might be a good way to at least dip your toe in the water.
