Rubyfan mentioned nuclear technology, which like cryptography, has a broad scope and military applications so isn’t something that was just left to the market to decide the best fit.
I don’t think I’ve left the scope of this discussion.
I was more talking about the consumer radiation side. Radium water to drink, women licking and painting radium watch dials. Toy physics kits for kids with uranium in it. Uranium glass also isn't great.
I mean the radium fad just by itself was pretty crazy, people used radium suppositories and radium makeup.
Ah I see. Thats definitely a case of regulations written in blood. I do think it strengthens the argument that we shouldn’t wait for wide spread adoption to cause problems, but rather study the issue and limit exposure until safety is at last vaguely known.
With AI, I don’t think there will be a lot of needed regulation until it gets to AI controlling physical machines like self driving cars. But in that respect, we already began regulating before problems appeared.
Like with Bethesda and paid-for game mods, the issue wasn't the functionality or the feature, but when it was introduced. Next time they do it, probably it'll blow over fast enough for them to just continue, rather than go back.
It also underlines in the US that sports is probably the last interest in linear programming. It would be interesting to get a picture of how many US customers will pay for ESPN in a Disney+ bundle but not Linear Hulu. I'm sure Disney will be tracking it, and probably made a smart move making the more interesting bundle the one with ESPN but not Linear Hulu.
There's a huge interest in sports in the US (and elsewhere). And broadcast rights reflect that. But there are also a bunch of people who would happily take a discount on all their other video to not include sports.
And sports coverage is very regional. Disney plus shows African football matches in S. Africa but in the US, I wouldn’t be surprised if it focused only on US football and US college teams.
In the US, ESPN somewhat built its reputation on having some of "all" sports, in part because when the channel started it was much easier/cheaper to fill 24 hours a day on cable with imports and non-traditional sports.
That still seems to mostly apply. In the US on Disney+ the US sports are often front and center, sure, but you can still scroll the list and get European football matches and some Aussie Rules Rugby and Cricket all kinds of things that people don't necessarily think US sports fans would watch. I think part of what ESPN realized, too, is that even regional sports can have global appeal with the right marketing or the fact that not much else is being played in that moment.
ESPN is also still often the home in the US of things like the Scripps National Spelling Bee and various Poker and Chess championships. This was famously mocked in the comedy movie Dodgeball with that movie's climactic Dodgeball championship happening on ESPN Ocho, the fictional 8th cable channel for US ESPN (which had 3 channels at the time). That joke has come full circle in interesting ways as ESPN has roughly 7 cable channels today and intentionally uses the "ESPN Ocho" branding for weirder/smaller audience championships even though the number of people that still remember the comedy movie Dodgeball is shrinking and people don't remember why it was a joke.
There are a few American sports fan who get up at 9am on a Saturday morning to watch the Premier League but that comes with an unbundled and affordable Peacock subscription. I used to be one of those guys but these days I might go to multiple games at my Uni and the other college in town and a weekend so I'm not inclined to watch sports on TV. Peacock has some other primo international sports such as the Rugby World Cup.
Yeah, it's interesting to watch which US streamers are adding which sports (that don't already have ESPN deals). Apple made a big deal about their MLS deal. Paramount+ has some random CBS Sports now. HBO Max has some sort of sports, I don't remember which.
I don't have cable or Disney+ any longer but, as someone who played rugby in school and still have an occasional interest, I find it's difficult to find in the US on TV.
Basically the idea is that foreign nationals can only have as much leverage as the quota. This is based partly on old fears that European powers would recolonize the US.
Whether or not is necessary or not, I can’t say but if India separated into 500 different counties, then the US would only be catering to 500 micronations, maybe even divided on ethnic lines, and not a single powerful one which could get cultural dominance.
For a historical case, look at the British Empire. If given a large quota, most immigrants would be from the original isles because that’s who have the financial means to cross the ocean, while the billion plus people living in colonies like India wouldn’t have a chance until the Empire breaks.
No, this policy is currently kept based on our reason for immigration, to encourage diversity. We would lose that, and make immigration be basically for highly populous countries. That isn't why the USA has immigration. We don't have a system purely to get bodies in the country.
The USA is not the British Empire. The USA did away with preference for western Europeans and replaced it with a system for everyone. It pisses me off we are told we are being racist by... making sure all races get a chance to come here?
From what I can see, sanctuary cities were acting within the law. Their only stance was that they wouldn’t spend precious time and resources verifying immigration status for schools, and city services. As these are paid for and voted on by city residents, that seems fair.
If states, and cities aren’t bound to help the federal government enforce every law, unless congress writes a law to say they must.
CBP and ICE always had the general authority to be more effective, but did not use it. As we can see from actions in this era, enforcing immigration law at all costs has draconian side effects on civil liberties, and general happiness and wellbeing.
While it’s true, the immigration issue has been marinating for a while, the current policy is not a good solution.
I’m not suggesting that nullification is against the law. It’s not. States have the right to ignore federal laws if they choose to. However if the states refuse to cooperate with law enforcement, and especially when they pass laws making cooperation illegal, it is for very obvious reasons likely to result in political escalation, as the feds will need to spend a significant amount of resources on statewide enforcement.
When you refuse to allow city and state law enforcement to assist federal agencies, don’t be surprised if federal law enforcement show up. It’s not even unprecedented, it’s just an issue of scale.
Ultimately, this is about democracy, and how refusing to participate when laws we don’t like pass, it is a recipe for extreme political conflict because it’s inherently undemocratic.
When it comes to cooperating with other entities, governments have to take a unified approach. Rather than have individual teachers deciding to question students on immigration status or not, they decided to not pursue the matter at all.
It seems fair. Immigration policy isn’t supposed to be enforced by local authorities to begin with. And unlike hiring a worker, there’s no easy way for people to verify immigration status. Finally, immigration offenses can be misdemeanors so spending effort in upholding hard to determine civil infractions seems unwise for local officials.
If ICE or CBP actually shows up and investigates, local authorities do help. Even in Chicago where the public is very much against it, the local police continue to cooperate with ICE … if nothing else just to shield them from protesters.
All sanctuary laws said is that local authorizes do not have to do thankless investigative work on people hundreds if not thousands of miles away from a land border with another country.
As someone who cares about democracy, I think it’s best practiced at the most local level possible, and if federal authorizes disagree with local policy they can override it via laws.
You just don’t see thus happening in many cases because local laws agree with federal ones, or are even more stringent. But this is a case where the locals could not, constitutionally, make a law (it has been tried, like in Arizona to have locals investigate legal immigration status but it’s been deemed unconstitutional).
For the record, I don’t think we a huge difference in opinion. I’m not surprised that ICE and CBP is out in force. I’m surprised it took so long, but think they could be more targeted, less brutal, and overall more competent.
Yea, I’d say we generally agree. Though I think noncompliance laws like sanctuary city laws are a significant escalation over just choosing a different allocation of resources.
My point is only that if the feds are going to go full agents in schools and shit, I think we ought to follow the harm reduction principles so people don’t actually get hurt when the violence kicks off. My concern is we’re nontrivially flirting with a genuine civil conflict.
If by “feel the same way” you mean “wouldn’t be surprised if random folks start getting charged with marijuana possession if the administration starts enforcing the laws on the books,” then yes.
I don’t “support” what the administration is doing, I’m just saying we’re actually on the losing side of the argument… and we’re actually flirting with real political violence with a losing argument.
If the states that have legalized some kind of marijuana uses wanted to (40 of 50 states), they could trivially actually legalize it.
There was “real political violence” because people wanted Trump to be president in 2020 and more recently a state lawmaker was swatted in Indiana because he didn’t go along with Trump’s redistributing demands.
In fact Romney said that some lawmakers were afraid to go against Trump because they were afraid for their families and they couldn’t afford armed security like he could. Is that really how we want to make decisions in this country?
You claimed that not acting or helping the federal government to enforce federal laws that in this case the Supreme Court has said is none of the states business would increase political violence. My contention is that anything the right doesn’t like will escalate to political violence if it is scene to go against Whsfs desr leader wants.
If you store the blood type of a patient hashed, the problem is that there are only so many blood types. So the same blood type will have the same hash value and attackers could (1) just infer statistically which are which, (2) crack one and get the rest and (3) group users even without cracking the hash.
That means we need to ensure the input values are getting more complex by prefixing them with secrets from elsewhere.
If you have one secret (e.g. stored in an environment variable) that would be the pepper. Adding pepper just makes cracking harder, but since it is the same for each value, it is not enough. But since it is not stored next to the input value it makes attacks harder.
A salt would be a per value secret that is stored for each blood type and prepended on hash.
The two in combination make it much harder to get from the hashed value to the input value without having both salt and pepper.
That’s encryption at rest, but not anonymization, unless you throw away the salt and pepper, at which point the record becomes meaningless since it cannot serve for future comparisons.
Set an alarm on your phone for when you should take your meds. Snooze if you must, but don't turn off /accept the alarm until you take them.
Put daily meds in cheap plastic pillbox container labelled Sunday-Saturday (which you refill weekly). The box will help you notice if you skipped a day or can't remember if you took them or not today. Seeing pills not taken from past days also serves to alert you if/that your "remember-to-take-them" system is broken and you need to make conscious adjustmemts to it.
I'm not going to say it's 'simple' to have hobbies or find people, but realistically if you don't regularly meet strangers in real life, you'll never date strangers so it's a catch 22.
Unless we all want to set ourselves up for arranged marriages in the future, we need to confront this reality.
Speaking as a pariah for most of his life; I doubts it would ever be so dire.
There's always going to be social circles and people coupling up no matter what. But if anything I wonder if, for people like me who aren't really worthy of intimacy, living in a society has options to live a solitary life while still contributing is actually a net positive overall. For me to self select out of the dating pool would mean less noise for someone else looking for a worthy partner.
There's less chaff that people in said said pool would have to wade though. The people that want to couple and are capable of doing so will continue to so with less distraction. That seems an overall good thing, no?
HIPAA only applies to covered healthcare entitites. If you walk into a McDonalds' and talk about your suicidal ideation with the cashier, that's not HIPAA covered.
To become a covered entity, the business has either work with a healhcare provider, health data trasmiter, or do business as one.
Notably, even in the above case, HIPAA only applies to the healthcare part of the entity. So if McDonald's collocated pharmacies in their restaurants, HIPAA would only apply to the pharmacists, not the cashiers.
That's why you'll see in connivence stores with pharmacies, the registers are separated so healthcare data doesn't go to someone who isn't covered by HIPAA.
**
As for how ChatGPT gets these stats... when you talk about a sensitive or banned topic like suicide, their backend logs it.
Originally, they used that to cut off your access so you wouldn't find a way to cause a PR failure.
Under Medical Device Regulation in the EU, the main purpose of the software needs to be medical for it to become a medical device. In ChatGPT's case, this is not the primary use case.
Same with fitness trackers. They aren't medical devices, because that's not their purpose, but some users might use them to track medical conditions.
Then the McDonalds cashier also becomes a medical practitioner the moment they tell you that killing yourself isn't the answer. And if I tell my friend via SMS that I am thinking about suicide, do both our phones now also become HIPAA-covered medical devices?
reply