One might consider a lot of things. But if you are at shooting war with United States government, then when United States government puts your away, you don't get to claim it's a free speech issue. You can't sit on those two chairs at once. Either you are a Warrior of Light battling the Nazis, and then it's way beyond free speech, or it's a public discussion and then "free speech" does not include shooting people. You can't claim both. If you're "ordinary citizen", you don't get to shoot at police, or you go to jail, and everybody who helps you does too. If you're a brave revolutionary, then we have a violent revolution, and it's not about "free speech" anymore, revolution is way beyond speech.
"The government showed that there were items in the box that were the same items found in the Soto’s residence, tying Sanchez and Rueda to the Sotos, and similar items found amongst the other defendants. It also showed materials in the box contained handwritten notes on them, specifically the name “Ines,” and “Ines in bc” [Ines in book club].
This further drew the connection between Sanchez, Rueda, and the Sotos. This connection was important for purposes of Pinkerton liability and showing they all shared the same motive, intent, knowledge, and foreseeability."
No lawyer, today is the day I learned about Pinkerton Liability, but apparently under it you can be held liable for the actions of your co-conspirators.
What you seem to be missing is that every single € you've spent on virtually anything in the past number of years, some of it has found its way to support organisations that have extreme racist views.
The title is kinda misleading. The actual wording is not specific about humanoid robots but "physical AI" which encompasses every machinery that can be potentially integrated with AI, especially focused on mass manufacturing for the Korean case. Basically this project is about all physical infrastructures to automate high tech manufacturing industry.
aspect-oriented programming is an apt name for what i imagine will be llm-science 101 in the not-too-distant future... though i found the "joint point model" details superfluous, and the piece as a whole to be cursory... modern aspect-oriented programming will become a much richer & more robust ontological and application tapestry than its legacy predecessor... one of the core fundamentals of aspect-oriented programming in the context of llms is the need to accurately model the entanglement of related aspects... let's look at an over-reduced and isolated example using english expressions as our subject... let's define two aspects of an english expression: brevity and precision... if we amplify one aspect, the other begins to degrade... thus we need to align our models with the nature of english, and entangle the two aspects... entangling aspects changes the nature of optimization itself... we go from maximizing in one direction to pushing to the entanglement's frontier (pareto), and then steering along that frontier for taste... this doesn't mean we don't define aspects in isolation... it just means we need to align our aspects with reality and reflect its nature via entanglement...
You can trace it back much earlier than that - until at least the 1500s, when the conflict was present but at much less of a boil. I'm assuming you concede that "if X does it to Y, it's fine for Y to do it to X" is not a functional model here. You should at least ask yourself, "how would I need to change my outlook if I learned it was impossible to resolve who started it?"
The concept of a passport didn’t emerge out of the ether. If you were traveling on official business, for the state or the military or as a merchant, you’d be carrying papers that said as much. Much of it relied on trust and reputation, and assuming we’re talking about say medieval Europe possibly the signature or word of a Lord. As for enforcement, violence was common.
Parallel construction means they have an illegal bugging device in the courthouse bathroom, and use a conversation that you have with your attorney to identify a witness. Then they independently arrest the witness for something and pressure them to testify.
They were trying to make a unified design language across all their operating systems. If iOS and VisionOS both have their icons sitting on uniformly shaped tiles, macOS would break the convention.
I don't like it, but I believe that's the reason why.
>Your context changes nothing: it's just one long "the ends justify the means" or "that's the way it is" and fails to address any of the ethics of the statements being made.
Is it asking too much of you to drop these thought ending cliches and actually try to argue your case? Ultimately ethical claims must bottom out at premises that can't be further supported. Here's the ethnical principle at play in my view: the freedom of association is a core principle as is its corollary, the freedom to dissociate. Just as I can exclude anyone from my home in principle, we can collectively exclude anyone from our collective land. This is the principle that justifies a nation discriminating based on citizenship. Of course, scaling from kinship groups to mega societies requires scaling these processes to something impersonal and ideally fair. Laws are the solution to this, but laws just are a representation of collective action and so inherit their justification.
>Why? All immigration systems I know take the person's views into consideration (for obvious reasons).
Yes, nations take stated/purported views into account. The issue is that it is impossible to accurately determine each immigrants personal views at scale. The inherent uncertainty involved is a risk, one that a host nation need not accept.
>They can't do that without disregarding the equality of all humans as a universal principle.
Universal human equality does not trump the right to free association/dissociation. Just because I see you as morally equal to me in principle does not mean I must suffer your presence around me. Of course, interpersonal relationships are different than laws. But laws are inward facing. That is, they create duties to and between people who are part of the same body politic. Outside of that body politic one has limited duties to each other. A right implies an obligation; a positive right is a claim to the effort/resources of others. I deny the legitimacy of universal positive rights. The only legitimate universal rights are negative rights, i.e. freedom from interference, assault, etc. But this doesn't imply freedom of movement across political borders.
RISC Zero verifies that an exact computation was performed. What would be the point of the system otherwise? If you're starting from this incorrect premise, you're going to arrive at an incorrect conclusion.
> Single purpose circuits make a lot of sense for this
No, they don't. They lock your system into a single set of trade-offs without an advantage to offset it. They're premature optimization. How do you think ZK systems can be made resilient to cloning attacks without hardware locking if your ZK vocabulary is limited to stupid BBS-style selective disclosure and nothing else?
> Now (Google says) your devices each store their own location history without centralisation.
...I smell a "backdoor" that's in the shape of the "Locate my device" and similar such systems. Unless there's no Android subsystem that will dredge up and present info about where a phone has been, then this demand seems totally plausible:
"We know that you can cause a device to report its historical location information. Cause all of the devices that were within area X between times T and G to report their positions during that time to us, the police. Here's our warrant."
A washer+dryer is pretty huge already. Seems like it could get some robot arms without changing the form factor dramatically.
That said, I think this is way farther off than anyone thinks. I want to know what the maintenance schedule looks like for robot arms. Looks like a lot of small moving parts. Probably a lot of plastic gears.
In an industrial setting, sure, maintenance is just an expense. But wheels require less maintenance and factories can be designed around the robots.
