If the question were, “how do you think this rule should be applied to a park in your neighborhood” I think agreement would much more achievable.
There is no clarity on what the context of the application of a rule is.
Is an ambulance a vehicle in the park? Of course. Should the rule apply to an ambulance on duty in an actual park? Of course not.
Is a memorial tank a vehicle in the park? Obviously. Would some people object the memorial? For sure. Likely because they don’t like tanks in the park, not because of the vehicle rule, however they may use the vehicle rule to object.
So - amazing data. Wrong question.
I propose that the differences in opinion are likely differences in understanding the ill-defined context of the question.
> I propose that the differences in opinion are likely differences in understanding the ill-defined context of the question.
The whole point of the article is that *on large platforms* it is impossible to have policies on moderation, etc. that people agree on. Not small, interest-specific, geographically and linguistically focussed niche platforms.
The example is further perfectly illustrated by users here dropping their confident, just-so how-tos that would accomplish difficult tasks like moderation easily, and other users disagreeing with their equally confident, personally experienced difficulties in executing such just-so plans.
If you can define the question so narrowly as to make the answers obvious, you're not talking about the same problem anymore.
Maybe that is the point of the article, however that is not the finding of the experiment the article is based on.
If the experiment was, "When should a park in your neighborhood apply the rule 'no vehicles in the park'?" I believe the outcome would have been very different with near universal agreement on the most important questions.
"pretend you are an enforcement official, and your only official guidance is this sign, the purpose of this rule is to keep the park safe, but you might get reprimanded if you kick someone out of the park and you can't convince your boss that they were breaking this rule"
This is all absolutely implicit context for many real world rules enforcers. I would bet money that if you reran this experiment with that prompt you would get over 60% of people in 100% agreement.
None of these reasons are particularly compelling for any case I've encountered, other than your code base is old and / or poorly designed, and you chose to write it in a language without static type checking.
The web has gotten so bad in English (and will only get worse), I can’t imagine how bad it must be in languages that only get the worst badly translated.
This list includes companies that received <$10,000 (and which was paid back entirely, for example the one below). It sounds like any amount of money from the government is a bailout by your metric. Or perhaps your definition is more narrow since the list only includes financial institutions and automakers, so maybe it's only banks or automakers that receive money from the government? To be less charitable, I'm pretty sure you're just reciting some stupid Twitter/Reddit talking point that you agree with and that you have no principled stance on this beyond "Arghhhhh I hate big corps! The system sucks! Corporations privatize profits and socialize losses!"
First, don't tell others how to post. You're not the arbiter of discussions. Posts like yours are themselves ad hominem attacks and attempts to deflect from engaging substantively in the discussion by appealing to some moral high ground that you think you occupy. You are not your karma score.
Second, you can't even articulate what my argument is (how do I know that you can't even articulate what my argument is? because I haven't made one, all I've done is ask for more information about yours), so how can you call it weak?
Third, you still haven't answered my original question: what is the last company to receive a bailout under your definition? More broadly, you haven't articulated what a bailout even is. It's telling that you haven't: you're not interested in a discussion, you're interested in making a political statement.
" We're tracking where taxpayer money has gone in the ongoing bailout of the financial system. Our database accounts for both the broader $700 billion bill and the separate bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
For each entity, we provide a “Net Outstanding” amount, which shows how deep taxpayers are in the hole after accounting for any revenue the government has received (usually through interest or dividends).
Companies that failed to repay the government and resulted in a loss are shaded red. You can see a list of those investments here. All other investments either returned a profit to the government or might still be repaid. Recipients of aid through TARP’s housing programs (such as mortgage servicers and state housing orgs) received subsidies that were never intended to be repaid, so we don’t mark those as losses..
"
So the lines marked in RED are where money was given to a private company and never repaid. That is an outstanding "loss" on a bailout.
So your definition of a bailout is "entities that received money under TARP plus Fannie and Freddie." This is a strange definition and it means that the last bailout that possibly could have happened was on October 3, 2010 per https://home.treasury.gov/data/troubled-asset-relief-program ("The authority to make new commitments through TARP ended October 3, 2010, at which time Treasury shifted focus to the orderly wind-down of TARP. As of September 30, 2023, all TARP programs have closed, and there are no remaining troubled assets held by OFS.").
Indeed, looking at what you believe to be the "last company to receive a bailout" we can see that they were bailed out in 2009. The August 2022 event that you believe to be a bailout is, as the description aptly notes, a "Partial Repayment" of their bailout from 2009.
To be honest, it seems like you have no idea what you’re talking about. Almost like you're just reciting some stupid Twitter/Reddit talking point that you agree with but don’t understand beyond "Arghhhhh I hate big corps! The system sucks! Corporations privatize profits and socialize losses!"
> To be honest, it seems like you have no idea what you’re talking about. Almost like you're just reciting some stupid Twitter/Reddit talking point that you agree with but don’t understand beyond "Arghhhhh I hate big corps! The system sucks! Corporations privatize profits and socialize losses!"
You said that already, verbatim.
Saying the same thing over and over does not help move the discussion forward, and is utterly pointless.
Do you want to have a discussion and exchange ideas, or just attack my ideas? So far you have shared none of your own ideas. Why is that?
Starting in 2008 GM were dispersed $50B dollars. As of today there is still $11.3B outstanding.
GM gross profit for the quarter ending September 30, 2023 was $5.356B (so roughly $20B a year). Do you not think GM should have to pay back some of that outstanding $11.3B ?
You don't think American society would be better off if taxpayer money was used to benefit tax payers instead of private companies so they can pay their CEO $38.9 million dollars a year?
What is your definition of bailout? how does it differ from the site I linked? do you think they are not problematic?
(if you share your thoughts and input I will learn something and be better educated as a result, rather than just continuing to attack me as a person.)
I’m not sure it you’re aware of the inefficiencies and corruption of the military, or the fact that - it’s a cost center. It’s also something we are able to spend unlimited funds on because it is existential. And privatizing the military would be a terrible idea.
We definitely can’t afford to operate other industries the way we operate the military, which consumes 15% of the annual budget.
Efficiency can be a problem in and of itself. Efficiency is a fine enough goal, though too often companies pursue it to the point that other important values like safety, resiliency, and long-term stability fall by the wayside. They'll also pursue efficiency by externalizing costs and risks to other parties. That's basically what you see in the rail shipping industry [1]. Companies will naturally pursue effiency. Nationalizing a company may be going too far, but we need something else (i.e., government) to pressure them to maintain other values too.
Interestingly, the reference implementation does seem to reference FairPlay, which is very much a copy prevention/anti-circumvention system (used for iTunes content, but also video encryption via HTML EME): https://github.com/JJTech0130/pypush/blob/main/albert.py
Assuming that DMCA does not cover API authentication (i.e. preventing unauthorized third-party clients from being able to access a server-side API – and I really don't know if it does or doesn't!), I wonder what the implications are if the same mechanism is used for both DMCA-covered DRM mechanisms, but also non-covered other purposes.
My intuition would be that it can't be good to "multi-purpose" a DRM tool from a DMCA enforcement point of view, but maybe that was never Apple's plan, and they just used the most secure attestation technology they had available on each platform, which for Intel Macs might just have been software-only FairPlay.
Yeah, and when exactly should everyone expect to stop seeing DMCA take down notices that didn't abuse the system, willingful harm creators, and an appeals process that is an unfunny joke?
Until then, it doesn't matter what the law says. They will abuse it, because PROFITS.
Also it is only necessary because of the lack of type enforcement which means no code can be relied and on and all code has to be constantly inspected for new bugs. Ugh.
Imagine a million-line codebase. There are half a dozen suspicious methods with complex sets of if/else if/else statements. And each of those statements make subsequent method calls.
Determining that code path is a nightmare. Types won't save you.
Types absolutely do prove logical correctness. In fact that’s all they do. However they can only prove the correctness of logic that’s type encoded. If your program is a primitive soup, there’s not much logic for them to prove.
I can see this being useful in strongly-typed languages too. There is a massive class of logical bugs that will type-check correctly, that will still result in wrong results being returned.
I built a toy raytracer in Haskell for fun. I found all of these bugs. It turns out that when you implement dot product slightly wrong, the image output is very confusing.
Even just redundant call paths are useful to spot. I recently looked through the standard library of a strongly, statically typed language and found that in one pretty basic function a validation function was called over 8 times despite reliably returning exactly the same result every time and this tool would highlight that very easily.
That's not even mentioning the logic bugs you can spot more easily as well.
There is no clarity on what the context of the application of a rule is.
Is an ambulance a vehicle in the park? Of course. Should the rule apply to an ambulance on duty in an actual park? Of course not.
Is a memorial tank a vehicle in the park? Obviously. Would some people object the memorial? For sure. Likely because they don’t like tanks in the park, not because of the vehicle rule, however they may use the vehicle rule to object.
So - amazing data. Wrong question.
I propose that the differences in opinion are likely differences in understanding the ill-defined context of the question.