> otherwise the concept of responsibility loses all value.
Frankly, I think that might be exactly where we end up going. Finding a responsible person to punish is just a tool we use to achieve good outcomes, and if scare tactics is no longer applicable to the way we work, it might be time to discard it.
A brave new world that is post-truth, post-meaning, post-responsibility, and post-consequences. One where the AI's hallucinations eventually drag everyone with it and there's no other option but to hallucinate along.
It's scary that a nuclear exit starts looking like an enticing option when confronted with that.
Ultimately the goal is to have a system that prevents mistakes as much as possible adapts and self-corrects when they do happen. Even with science we acknowledge that mistakes happen and people draw incorrect conclusions, but the goal is to make that a temporary state that is fixed as more information comes in.
I'm not claiming to have all the answers about how to achieve that, but I am fairly certain punishment is not a necessary part of it.
I saw some people saying the internet, particularly brainrot social media, has made everyone mentally twelve years old. It feels like it could be true.
Twelve–year–olds aren't capable of dealing with responsibility or consequence.
>A brave new world that is post-truth, post-meaning, post-responsibility, and post-consequences. One where the AI's hallucinations eventually drag everyone with it and there's no other option but to hallucinate along.
That value proposition depends entirely on whether there is also an upside to all of that. Do you actually need truth, meaning, responsibility and consequences while you are tripping on acid? Do you even need to be alive and have a physical organic body for that? What if Ikari Gendo was actually right and everyone else are assholes who don't let him be with his wife.
> Google’s head of security and risk operations responded to [a message about an incident] to clarify what had happened. They noted that an “officer arrived at reception without notice” and that the agent was “not granted entry because they did not have a warrant and promptly left.”
This seems like a very reasonable way to handle it.
There was a recent secret internal ICE memo stating that they determined they were free to essentially engage in unconstitutional home invasions[1]. If they decided to batter down the doors at Google there is nothing stopping them.
The only thing keeping them in check is the courts, and that practically operates in geologic timeframes compared to the rate they are breaking laws.
> The only thing keeping them in check is the courts, and that practically operates in geologic timeframes compared to the rate they are breaking laws.
There are years of precedent and common practice that makes police and police like entities basically unreachable by law. Between qualified immunity, presumption of regularity and generally all the roadblock and convoluted technical rules supreme court placed between possible judgement and police ... courts can do only so much.
What do you think it would be reasonable for Google to do here?
Should they try to put security staff in harms way attempting to resist ICE entry?
ICE are thugs doing illegal things, but I also think that these things are for the courts to resolve, not something that should be handled with physical force.
The only other policy I can really think to have is to call the local police and tell them that ICE are executing an illegal search and hope.
A company with a four trillion dollar market cap has some leverage in this country’s affairs. This isn’t the local mom and pop getting pushed around. They could decide it’s in their interests to flip Texas with the money in their couch cushions.
> ICE are thugs doing illegal things, but I also think that these things are for the courts to resolve, not something that should be handled with physical force.
"The rule based world order is over. America first. Bad things are going to happen (We must invade now)."
Donald the XIV
But you're wrong. The memo says they can use an administrative warrant - which is to say, a warrant signed by an immigration official, part of the executive branch - to enter a house and arrest someone. The executive branch is authorizing an executive branch official to enter a home, bypassing the judicial branch.
The CRUCIAL thing to note is that ICE gets stuff wrong. Their info is often stale or flat wrong - so even though they say "this is only for illegal immigrants, don't worry about it ;)", it can ABSOLUTELY affect citizens.
Note also that, since it's ICE and immigration officials (again: all executive branch) making these determinations, the executive is also deciding whether there's probable cause to think that an illegal immigrant is in a particular house. This damage to due process is ostensibly only aimed at immigrants, but it affects all of us.
I see the issue raised with the process owner being all Executive --but on the other hand due process frequently inadvertently affects non-criminals (i.e. not all suspects are the guilty party in a given case; however many suspects go through a process where they are finally eliminated as a suspect --but that sometimes can carry on for many years as in the Ramsey case and people spend tens of thousand and millions while they are under suspicion (i.e. not cleared of wrongdoing). So due process doesn't guarantee an innocent person is not inadvertently "dragged though mud".
I don't think it's valid to deflect by saying "well, due process isn't perfect" - no one ever said it was. But due process is there to protect you from arbitrary persecution, and it's much better to have it than to not have it.
> people spend tens of thousand and millions while they are under suspicion (i.e. not cleared of wrongdoing)
You managed to hit the nail on the proverbial head... "not cleared of wrongdoing" means "guilty until proven innocent" and turns the promise of the justice system on its head - spending millions to prove innocence is just a mundane consequence of that perversion.
> So due process doesn't guarantee an innocent person is not inadvertently "dragged though mud".
And, not quite accidentally, it allows to drug anyone though mud regardless of guilt - both purposefully or inadvertently.
I've said this before but the type of argument you use is quite common and it boils down to the following fallacy: If something is already happening somewhere, sometimes - it's the right thing to do everywhere and all the time.
The fact that the government can excuse and routinely do something while getting away with it doesn't mean that the getting away or the action itself are right or justified.
The discussion here is about the compatibility of government's actions with the spirit of the Constitution which doesn't provide an exemption for habituated wrongs.
Authorities have to conduct investigations. Their voters demand that as part of a civilized society those deputized to keep the peace pursue and solve violations to the public order. Since investigators can't consult a magic ball, their investigations will necessarily involve people who are later cleared. One can attempt the ideal, knowing the ideal is not attainable and that reality is messy. It's a balance. It's not perfect. Some innocent people get caught up in the messy parts.
> Some innocent people get caught up in the messy parts.
What's the number of innocents you're willing to sacrifice to get the outcome you desire? Would you be okay if you or your loved ones are caught up in the messy parts?
There's more than one way to do that, some a lot better than the current practice which, as of now, involves shooting suspects in the head.
> Since investigators can't consult a magic ball
That's what the shooting perpetrators claim too - "we weren't sure if this woman was going to try to wipe us all out, we've got no magic ball, thus, head meet bullet seemed like a reasonable thing to do... repeatedly".
> One can attempt the ideal
There's no evidence that anything close to that has been attempted since at least 2001.
> It's a balance.
It's not. Nobody's punished, no consequences for errors, not even a hint of admission - replaced by blame the victim in the worst crimes imaginary - before looking at the evidence and without even consulting a dictionary to see what the words mean.
Despite the word "warrant" being present, an “administrative warrant” does not allow law enforcement to enter private property.
If they find a illegal immigrant on public streets, they can be detained, but still cannot enter a private residence (even if occupied by an illegal immigrant) as it would violate the 4th amendment.
> Despite the word "warrant" being present, an “administrative warrant” does not allow law enforcement to enter private property.
Even an actual judicial arrest warrant doesn't (legally) allow them to enter private party on suspicion that the target might be there. Search is a separate thing from seizure, and you need a judicial search warrant to search a private residence or the non-public areas of a business for a person, no matter what authority you might have to arrest them should you find them.
That makes sense. But that raises a separate unrelated question; how do bailbondsmen seem to be able to take their targets in, are they violating the law or are criminals gullible or something else?
Bail agents can usually enter the home of the subject without additional consent due to clauses in the contract of the bail bond, but not (without the owners consent) homes owned by third parties even if the target is present.
Criminals are also frequently gullible.
And bail agents are fairly notorious as a group for having a less than scrupulous attention to legal restrictions.
Why did he go there without a warranty in the first place? Was he following someone who entered the building? Would that be weird similar to the weird mustached guy from the 40s?
ICE has been going around without judicial, as opposed to administrative, warrants, relying on threats and coercion to be let in and to arrest people. That's what this probably is.
One single guy. What was he supposed to do after they let him in? Just start asking people about their legal status? I doubt Google has many illegal immigrants working there ... I doubt there's even one.
Then this guy finds them, allegedly, does he just arrests them and take them out the building? All by himself? With all the cameras and phones on the planet recording it? Inside Google, from all places?
It just doesn't make sense.
From the article:
>Google’s top brass—including CEO Sundar Pichai and DeepMind CEO Demis Hassabis—have remained silent on Pretti’s killing even inside the company, sources say.
I think you are maybe approaching this from some rational place with some kind of assumption of good will. ICE on the other hand invaded Hyundai and arrested a bunch of people on various visas without knowing what was law enforcement and what was kidnapping. Big mistake maybe, for who? Met their quota. Only one guy? Can call others as soon as they have found a suspicion and then it is not reasonable to deny other enforcement. It is potentially as illegal as blocking backup to an active crime scene.
What concentration camp? They're sending people home. Do I have a right to just show up and stay indefinitely in any country on earth just because I don't like my home country? Obama supported deporting people all day long, especially criminals, but now believing the existence of borders supposedly makes one "MAGA."
> Obama supported deporting people all day long, especially criminals, but now believing the existence of borders supposedly makes one "MAGA."
Ignorance, wilful lying, no respect for due process, support for illegal state-sponsored terrorism, lack of empathy are some of the things that makes one MAGA. Not belief in the existence of borders.
I guess no one questions about illegal immigrants being deported, but actually being physically attacked, abused and havr authorities blatantly denying wrongdoing even when they are caught (besides using AI for editing images to create certain narratives and supporting such actions when they are found doing that)
But anyway. That's not my problem. I hope all ends well for everyone
CEOs restructure. Haliburton for example seems to have head quarters psychizophrenia.
Google headquartered in the US is weak. Google headquartered in Ireland can play the negotiation farce and will either win in the end or will be able to write off the US in a better position.
Similarly they can move anyone who is uncomfortable to other GEOs individually. Kind of a weak move that may be enough if the current administration falls apart.
The thing is, they are required to have a warrant, but I don't believe they are required to show you the warrant. In which case what exactly should they do?
Not a lawyer, but I think this is common knowledge: They are required to not only show it but provide a copy of the warrant on request. Furthermore the warrants are scoped, if the warrant specifies searching for firearms and the search your hard drive it can't be used in court unless you verbally allow it. Don't resist, but don't consent.
It's pretty common to treat unauthorised entry attempts as a serious security incident.
The minimum follow-up actions I'd expect would be filing a police report, sending all-staff emails reminding people to be on the lookout for tailgaters, and reviewing security at reception.
If there was a specific risk of ongoing intrusion attempts, then I'd also expect legal action (eg. injunctions or restraining orders) to be taken in mitigation.
It's perfectly reasonable for staff to want to seek assurance that those sort of basic measures to ensure their safety are underway.
I wouldn't be so sure about this. I think people who don't give a shit about society or politics or human rights abuses and only care about advancing cool technology can participate in and drive progress.
It's about a difference of degrees. If experiences like yours happen very rarely ebay is fine with it but if it become too common then sellers will leave which is obviously a huge loss for ebay.
This sundering of US-European relationship feels like watching a trainwreck in slowmotion. It's all so stupid and avoidable. Is there really nothing that can be done?
Can people quit with this stupid argument? A thin majority of Americans voted for this during the election. If you follow the polls, the vast majority of American currently don't want this. Just stop with this "dumb Americans" dur dur nonsense. Those of us who have our heads screwed on straight are so sick of being blamed for this. The same thing could happen at any time in any country.
This is not true. First of all, this is the SECOND time this clown is elected.
Secondly, 77,302,580 americans voted for trump. That is one in three.
I am sorry you get blamed for this, I know you are not to blame. But you have to see how it looks from the outside, given the incredible effects it has had (most importantly, making millions lose faith in the world. And who knows what more to come.)
To add to this, the thing that really worries me is not that Trump is doing this, but the fact every single US has had the capacity to do this (Trump is proof of it), and the only thing holding back the US from self-immolation and destroying all their partnerships was decorum and being nice, but there were no actual mechanisms, laws, or tools to prevent POTUS from self-appointing himself as King of America, which is extremely worrying for what many people regarded as an advanced democracy.
I understand, but it's also a bit rich coming from the US.
When the US applies country level sanctions or goes to war in places like Gaza, Afghanistan, Venezuela, Cuba, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Iran - I don't see much thought given to it really not being the peoples fault.
> The same thing could happen at any time in any country.
Not really. They can say "we shouldn't have taken this"[0], they can decide the case in a way that doesn't really offer any precedent (eg: these are the wrong plaintiffs to have brought the case), or they can remand it back to a lower court for more info. Prediction markets seem to think there's a 70% chance they'll strike down the tariffs though.
Icon - Ideographic character is a really interesting connection I've never seen made before that seems to capture what is going on. Don't agree with your conclusion to "use chinese characters" though. I don't think it's easy to tell what they depict.
On the one hand I agree, but on the other hand I think it can be useful to examine both sides of ones vices. For instance, by studying delay as a legitimate technique you may come to realize that you have been subconsciously doing this. Just poorly and in the wrong situations. And you can ask yourself when you feel the urge to procrastrinate "is this the right time to delay? are there important things I should wait for before doing this?". And if there is then you can procrastrinate with good conscience and if there isn't then you have an additional argument for doing it now.
Going out on a limb with my speculation, I think it could even remove psychological fuel from the fire. By more clearly knowing when the behavior is and isn't appropriate, it will mean that when it seems inappropriate it will also be inappropriate, so performing the behavior when it seems inappropriate wil not be successful or rewarded or strengthened.
> I oversee pressing for over 150k+ records a year. We eliminated download cards a while ago because the redemption rate was so low.
Maybe you are right, but I wouldn't discount the possibility that people are willing to pay for the idea that they could some day download it even if it never ends up actually happening. Kinda like getting an insurance policy you probably wont need you know?
> No, that’s not why the /EHa option results in less efficient code. The possibility that any memory access or arithmetic operation could trigger an exception significantly impairs optimization opportunities. It means that all variables must be stable at the point memory accesses occur.
This is a good insight but I feel like stopping the analysis here is a little bit too early. We should also think about what they actually wanted to achieve. Did they actually need all variables to be stable at the point of any memory access? Maybe they want 90% of the benefits at 10% of the cost somehow?
> Did they actually need all variables to be stable at the point of any memory access?
One of the most important optimizations that a compiler can do is keeping a variable in a register and never even bother letting it hit memory in the first place. If every variable must get its own RAM address and the value at that RAM address must be faithful to a variable's "true" value at any given instruction, we should expect our software to slow down by an order of magnitude or two.
I don’t think there is a version of UB that gives you a predictable 90%, though. Either your program is exception-safe or it’s not. There’s no such thing as 90% safe.
A possible compromise could be to be able to tell the compiler, "I don't care about structured exceptions anywhere else, so do all your instruction reordering stuff there, but this one section of code I know could throw structured exceptions, so be more conservative here." It might need to generate duplicated code for some functions, though.
The majority of a program's runtime is usually spent in only a tiny section of its code. That is where optimization benefits are. If it helps to separate out that code and compile it with different compiler switches, the additional maintenance burden for the program structure and build system might be acceptable.
Go look at profiles for programs which have been written with performance in mind. Operating systems, databases, game engines, web servers, some compilers, video/audio/3d editing packages come to mind. I 100% guarantee these programs do not spend the majority of their runtimes in a tiny section of code. What you said is nearly-unilaterally untrue, at least for programs that care about real performance.
I do write and profile software of that kind and this experience is why I know this isn't a myth. Any mature program has a whole lot of code that actually isn't performance critical at all. For example, 3d software needs a really huge amount of GUI and other support code that isn't performance critical at all. The performance hotspots are really just individual functions doing the core of the processing work for any of the features it offers. The initiation/scaffolding code around that just doesn't matter. The same translates to all other software that that I have worked on.
Static web servers I've actually seen spend most of their time in a couple of very hot paths (mostly the kernel's TCP stack). The others I agree with 100%, and also of course if your web server is doing any dynamic page work. Web browsers, too, and probably many important categories of software.
That's not a useful description of desktop "creative" software. Even though it might be true for audio that in many cases, the majority of the run time is spent handling the "process callback" from the audio subsystem, once the user starts actually working on things, the slow parts of the code (and the ones that impede the user or degrade their experience) are far removed from that core. This is a little less true of visual applications (video, drawing, image editing etc.) but I would imagine that similar considerations apply there too.
Idk the Danish approach of opennnes seems to be working for them. They acknowledge it isn't fully effective. They acknowledge that there may be a small risk of side effects. And they tell people it's worth it and to go take it.
"Since HPV vaccination was implemented in the Danish childhood vaccination programme in 2009, we have received 2,320 reports of suspected adverse reactions from HPV vaccines up to and including 2016. 1,023 of the reported adverse reactions have been categorised as serious. In the same period, 1,724,916 vaccine doses were sold. The reports related to HPV vaccination that we have classified as serious include reports of the condition Postural Orthostatic Tachycardi Syndrome (POTS), fainting, neurological symptoms and a number of diffuse symptoms, such as long-term headache, fatigue and stomach ache."
"The risk of cervical changes at an early stage was reduced by 73% among women born in 1993 and 1994, who had been vaccinated with the HPV vaccine compared with those who had not been vaccinated."
"The Danish Health Authority recommends that all girls are vaccinated against HPV at the age of 12. The Danish Health Authori-
ty still estimates that the benefits of vaccination by far outweigh any possible adverse reactions from the vaccine."
Its not like it wasn't without issues. You had the documentary from a state funded tv station that uncritically let people claim all kind of issues after getting the vaccine. It drastically lowered the uptake of the vaccine.
> They acknowledge it isn't fully effective. They acknowledge that there may be a small risk of side effects. And they tell people it's worth it and to go take it.
Those are basic bits of knowledge that apply to most vaccinations.
The problem is that the quacks diminish the positive effects, exaggerate the negatives and engage in a campaign of fear mongering that costs some people (and in some cases lots of people, see COVID) their lives. They are not only clueless, they are malicious.
From Gwyneth Paltrow, JFK Jr, all the way to Donald Trump and a whole raft of others the damage is immense. I have a close family member who now is fully convinced of the healing power of crystals and there isn't a thing you can do to reason with people that have fallen into a trap like that.
I think those who advocate for censorship are gullible and have fallen for the bush-league trap of believing that the state is on your side and exists to benefit you.
Frankly, I think that might be exactly where we end up going. Finding a responsible person to punish is just a tool we use to achieve good outcomes, and if scare tactics is no longer applicable to the way we work, it might be time to discard it.
reply