They own all IP, why would they be subject to automated scans?

There is many good reasons to "scan" _all_ content. How about spam, illegal content, or anything that violates their TOU? These days if you do not have a litany of algorithms performing these tasks, the worst case is that you'll end up like Facebook where genocide occured (in Myanmar) because the content was not in unicode and the detection systems couldn't "read" it.

Like any other site, accounts with less "trust" are probably going to be flagged by automatic mechanisms. I've been on a few teams with various companies that have done things like fraud detection and it almost always works this way. sometimes there is of course, legitimate false positives.

That’s a good point. scanAll() and applyAutomatedTakedownAI() would not be applied equally because of course big corp never pirates

I think this illustrates the cloud is unacceptable for anything more than storage and retrieval.

All computed results from data science must include steps and code to verify locally.

It calls into question privacy on federated networks and crypto networks; any node can be manipulated locally to change payload outputs on delivery, reveal secrets, disrupt workloads.

This makes sense to a lot of folks in computer engineering and physics, versus abstract software. No physical theory I know of offers any guarantee our arbitrary computing machines will ever be securable. We put fart pipes on Hondas.

Science proves it’s titillating smoke and mirrors once again. Still waiting for nuclear rocket cars.

I think this proves further as well why general computing chips need to be replaced with workload specific designs, where the anticipated inputs are well known and no vague logic paths to intentionally allow software monkey patching ever ship.

Security doesn’t scale at a price point that private sector companies could typically afford.

Perhaps we fail at pricing security into the value of a company, or maybe that’s what risk appetite is about.

The problem is that you can get away with minimal security for a long time. Sure, if you get hit, shit hits the fan. But by then, it's quite likely that all competitors that spend money and time on security and good infrastructure are long gone.

This is worsened by the fact that it's very hard for laypeople to assess the security of a specific application and that, by now, "cyberattack" has become common enough that it's easily accepted as an excuse.

Which is why certifications, audits, and minimum mandated standards are critically important.

The market just yawns at this stuff, until it gets fragged. Then it forgets and the cycle repeats.

> Which is why certifications, audits, and minimum mandated standards are critically important.

Not sure about that. All the security standards want me to run software written in an unsafe language as root on every device, intentionally parsing malicious inputs continuously.

That’s not making anything safer.

Pretty clearly, the standards have to be effective and well-designed. And yes, there are problems with that.

But the point remains that markets do very poorly at rare and/or cumulative risks. And that's the comparison I'm making. The market of and by itself will give you a race to the bottom in standards.

A longer-term view, whether through government regulation and oversight, social suasion, religious morality and ethics, or (possibly) insurance-oriented risk management (yes, a market mechanism, though something of an exception to the rule), will typically operate by the mechanisms I've described above. That there may be poor implementations doesn't obviate the fact that there can also be good ones, and that that's the goal we're aiming for.

Probably, at least some part of a modern financial sector including startups has many things in common to pyramid schemes.

> I think this illustrates the cloud is unacceptable for anything more than storage and retrieval.

You can run in dedicated tenancy where you have the whole machine or a metal configuration where you also have the whole machine.

That would ruin providers' user:hardware ratios, one of the foundational principals of cloud computing.

On the contrary, certain CSPs did this already (quietly) and further, had already developed hardware mitigations for things like meltdown, spectre and rowhammer.

But did they manage to keep their prices low?

(And those who employed hardware mitigations wouldn't have a problem with user:hardware ratios, would they?)

Intel gets it and is adjusting to be a foundry that builds chips to application spec.

For me cloud computing is just where the best pay is. I do not at all see it as the future of computing.

One reason is ML will help us realize we write code we don’t need; so much of it is syntax sugar for business specific needs; infra, security… it’ll be realized cloud software is solving unemployment not technical problems of value. That many issues with software back in the day were lower quality networks, and consumer hardware. I mean any phone can abstract metadata from any one users amount of behavior, we do it in a DC because that’s where the jobs are. Chip manufacturing will include ML normalized logic for specific application.

LAN IOT will improve and we’ll realize the Metaverse can be implemented with a local client and AI generated art, on a mobile GPUs power in a few years. Middle men like Zuckerberg face the most uncertain future. He failed to diversify as well as Bezos, Newell, and others.

IMO, Valve is a serious threat with Steamdeck; an open IOT brain in a kid friendly form factor could be the new cigarette. Even Apple may have to take them seriously. My kids iPads need replacing soon; a flat glass slab with no interactive controls, requiring another $800+ machine to develop on, bloated development tools, fees, and a bunch of cloud logins, are not going to motivate kids to feel creative.

At the end there you highlight the issue that makes me think good taste is still hand wave-y subjectivity.

Since you say early on good taste is the difference between “I have” and “I do” good taste can’t be anything we possess, so how can anyone “have” good taste. Round n round we go.

This continues to highlight for me the shortcomings of human languages. Chomsky calls them random noise formalized and controlled by political powers. It makes sense, they only show up 5,000 years ago and we had glyphs for process and ideas before then. Given our legal system is normalized to matters of object possession, so goes our discourse. Given your measure it’s about “I do” versus “I have” can anyone “have” good taste since it comes down to advertising and accepting one is possessed of certain character traits? Isn’t it still gaudy self promotion and idolatry?

I’m still leaning towards peoples social power being due to their relative closeness to social power. Not that they’re uniquely beyond human. Why accept that in a system politically and academically normalized abstraction “good taste” is a useful language object itself?

I'd say taste can be more like musical talent. Someone can play well or poorly, and if they are good, we say they "have" talent, even though what we mean is we've observed them "doing" the music, and it is the effect of competence.

The metonymy itself clouds the concept as well. You can have an ear for music or an eye for design, a nose for a story or a conflict, a tact with others, but taste for...everything? My framing implies one would have a taste for power, even if it bends the lexical rule.

Everyone can have "good taste," by becoming competent at the things they do, and therefore have knowledge of which signals are meaingful and powerful in their domain, and which are not. They will not be equally reliable, as some people will have more experience, talent, or commitment.

The next big question is what power is, as in where is it located or come from, what are its sufficient and necessary conditions, is it real, and if it is what else must be real, and if it isn't, what else can't be, must something be conscious to be subject to it, and is power over unconscious objects or being/things real if they don't experience it, is political power anything other than stored potential energy in the form of violence, etc. I don't have answers, and I think the po-mo's were quite into that (Foucalt, Marcuse I think?). I'm sure someone here knows this stuff for real.

If you are sitting in a meeting with someone who has obviously tuned out and is typing into their laptop, consider the possibility this is what they're thinking about, and I find it makes them more likeable.

> Since you say early on good taste is the difference between “I have” and “I do” good taste can’t be anything we possess, so how can anyone “have” good taste. Round n round we go.

There is no contradiction and no circularity here. You are mixing levels of meaning. The concept of possession in "I have lots of gold" is different from the concept in "I have good taste". One refers to property ("I own lots of gold"), while the other refers to an attribute ("I am well-tasting"). The fact that they happen to use the same word is mostly a coincidence, and in no way makes anything circular.

Sure if you dissect the language syntax; no circles. If I try to consider what this means to my agency, we’re saying I have to accept others are possessed by good taste or act in good taste, so I should emulate them. Conformity is good taste.

So, IMO, this self fulfilling meta-nonsense to generate self fulfilling meta-nonsense.

Python was Googles language of choice for a while, so people jumped at it to work at Google.

Popularity and expansive use may have nothing to do with quality, and a lot to do with financial influence on peoples agency.

Business wants people templating out directories of performant code, not generating syntactic art for the ages.

That sounds less like an issue with software companies and more like a privatization at scale problem in general.

Gentlemens club contracts to behave as a middleman between the people and government, corporate bucks, rent being deducted from pay… all happened before.

The software part of it is the only novel part to this story.

If we’re going to continue to allow landlords, get used to it. Either you set aside specific time pay them in nation state bucks or they’ll garnish your wages.

How this is seen as any different than forcing a religion on people, I don’t know.

I don’t believe in Bill Gates’ wealth. I’ve never seen him work a day in my life. He’s afforded the social status of a Pope even after his business was convicted of market manipulation.

Yep we’re basically living in the imaginations of others again.

I think it’s great.

It’s the story of humanity moving on from “I am my own industrial island” to inclusive effort at scale to automate away and normalize often dangerous logistical work (I am 41 and have limbless, digit less peers who had to work on family farms as teens.)

Family farms are, to me, simply a legacy social and technical effort.

The problem is old politics refusing to take reality seriously. Americans who carry on about their legacy of revolution, moving history forward, disruption!, exporting that mentality to the world, are all sad their lives are disrupted by others wanting the same agency.

Moral relativism worked for Americans while we bombed the world, impeding other nations progress, but they caught up anyway.

“There’s a warning sign on the road ahead; a lot of people saying we’d be better off dead. Don’t feel like Satan; but I am to them; so I try and forget it any way I can.”

If you didn’t sign a contract to be a family farmer for life, oh well. America.

We should drop “tech” from tech company altogether at this point. No reason other companies, like Walmart, can’t be blamed for the same things.

Even a little cottage industry player for Apple or Intel is just grifting on large scale grift of agency and planet destruction; one shared reality makes it kind of hard to hide the whole economy is thoughtless dedication to death cult behavior.

So much pointless taxonomy is generated about our society. Free speech is great but like with infinitely big little numbers, it can just meander forever, as our political system is showing us.