My pen weighs in at 10g in my backpack and is capable of durably recording information for thousands of years. No battery to charge, cheap, and plentiful.
I use my fingers to interact with computers, and they don't have any extra weight at all, as they are already attached to me. You need to also count the weight of the paper.
And, no, your pen and paper are not able to durably record information for thousands of years. Unless you have some really bespoke setup.
Acid-free paper and a carbon-black ink, or a modern neutral pH iron-gall ink, should last 1000 years if stored correctly. 2000 might be pushing it, but under a controlled atmosphere it should be possible.
They work okay on straight roads with no median. But often fail in these cases:
- cresting a hill. Normal people can see the cone of light from the approaching car and often turn classic high beams down before it blinds fellow drivers. These do it only when it detects the actual light source, giving a 0.2-0.5 (about) flash of bright light.
- Wet and snowy ground. Even when they re-align themselves somewhat properly they can be blinding due to reflections which are not part of the angle-calculation algorithm.
- Failure to detect pedestrians and cyclists. Self-evident, but when I am not in a car I am impressed by how blinding it is.
Personally I consider them to decrease safety for everyone except the car with those headlights. I also feel like it is yet another badly designed automation which adds to the ability to slightly doze off and pay a little less attention to traffic.
Encumbrances and easements tend to follow the land even if they aren’t explicitly mentioned in the deed in question from the most recent transaction. They must be explicitly struck. Source: land attorney when asked this question about a deed restriction from a past deed. It was about NH real estate law, but I was told this was a general principle. It’s part of the reason title searches are done. The effective deed is a fold over the sequence of deeds.
Companies are hypocrites about this. On the one hand they say “we need to shut this down because we’re losing money on it.” On the other hand, asking them to release aspects of the game to self-host the infrastructure: “but that’s our IP and it’s valuable to us.” You shouldn’t be able to have it both ways. Sitting pretty on unprofitable IP in the hopes that it might someday make you money again is a net loss to society.
In my personal opinion, the actual problem there relating to "that's our IP" is the length of copyright.
20 years max will provide plenty of reward for creators. Some work on making copyright protect creators first, preferencing them over later owners, would also be good.
We also need works to be free to use, legislated so, after copyright expires. That would be to prevent, for example, Trade Marks being leveraged against users of works on which copyright has expired.
Our society was designed from the foundations to benefit the owning class, and this is a prime, easily observed example of that. You're completely correct and it doesn't matter, because the point of IP law is to allow people who know nothing to sit on assets they own and make money for doing no work.
If someone wants to argue this position, I would challenge them to explain why anything around IP law exists as it does now if that was not the explicit goal.
The good faith interpretation is that innovation is spurred by having some guarantees that your innovation isn't immediately ripped off. It allows for investing more into R&D.
I'm not saying the current system achieves that, but it is part of the justification.
A good faith interpretation at this point is voluntarily sticking your head in the sand to feign centrism. The purpose of a system is what it does, and ours, too predictably to be mere coincidence, permits capital to endlessly extract value from those actually creating it, to the detriment of those value creators, the people they create value for, and even if they're too dead inside to perceive it, the capital holders themselves.
Initially, copyright and patents were a counter-response to the European guild system.
Early on, you also had to prove your patrnt with a physical thing. Couldnt write the patent to deceive. And for making plain language, you got protection for 17 years.
Now, theres shit like 'business process patents', genetic patents, and other horrible. And patents are now writtten to confuse and hide, unlike plain language.
Copyrights were basically bought by Disney. Theyve been grossly perverted due to money interests.
Im mostly OK with trademarks. It comes from Heraldry and family coat of arms. Trademarked colors are quite bullshit however.
I had a friend get her account hacked, and it’s mystifying why Facebook won’t leverage the friend graph to restore access. If Facebook was like: go collect these restoration tokens from these people and we’ll give you your account back, that would be awesome.
That's a good idea too. When I lost my FB account due to hacking I had my mom and my sister reach out on my behalf. But the hackers were posting some bad stuff apparently and the account was terminated pretty quickly. If I could have used the biometrics/hardware combo I detail in the paper to self-suspend and then reverify the account, it would have limited the damage to my rep and the platform's rep.
Additionally social graphs could prompt for AI black hats to target groups of friends at the same time as opposed to randomness. And in that scenario what happens when the attacker modifies the friends list while you sleep? Appreciate your comment.
> It basically devolves into a Volunteer’s Dilemma. There’s no incentive here to be the guinea pig, so nobody will want to be.
Except there is lots to gain from being the first to write about the new malware on some registry, so companies are actively downloading and inspecting literally every package.
Back in the day (maybe 6-7 years ago?) you could detect this by uploading a new npm package that hit back some endpoint in your control, and it was almost guaranteed that this endpoint got a request within a minute of publishing a new package or update to existing one with users. Nowadays I think none of the scanners actually run the code, mostly static-analysis, and I dunno how often the npm download counter updates per day, probably harder to see in real-time.
> Except there is lots to gain from being the first to write about the new malware on some registry
Show me the company writing to their customers “we intentionally decided to ship code with potentially novel vulnerabilities. One of those vulnerabilities caused disclosure of your data, but cheer up! We have this cool security blog post about it now.” Meanwhile their competitors freeride and their customers’ data is safe.
I think it's more some security company writing about a vulnerability they discovered in this module or a worm/backdoor and not the company that wrote the software. The security company gets publicity and potentially gets more biz for security consulting.
We’re not talking about security researchers here:
> there is lots to gain from being the first to write about the new malware on some registry, so *companies* are actively downloading and inspecting literally every package.
>We’re not talking about security researchers here:
we are.
"companies" in this context is "security companies" (hence why they are "downloading and inspecting every package", which would not make sense if referring to the people authoring and shipping a single package)
I can see a corporate future where tokens are haggled over in department budgets just like any other line item. Some projects will get more of them, other projects will get less of them. "Use AI for everything" will become "use AI economically and build things that outlast our budget for it."
reply