Oh come on, data leaks (even unintentional ones) have been a part of our collective industry since about the time the first two computers were connected together. Whole industries exist to put together profiles of you based on data that deterministic applications that you installed and choose to use send with or without your knowledge all day long.
It's also possible to craft a comprehensive law. My state allows all of the following, even expired versions as long as it expired within the last year, or if the voter is over 65 as long as it was unexpired on their 65th birthday regardless of how long it has been expired now:
1) Driver's license, even expired if expired within the last 2 years
2) State Non-Driver's ID
3) Out of state Driver's License
4) Passport
5) Free Voter ID
6) College / University ID
7) School employee ID
Additionally all the following are valid, without any limitations on expiration as long as they are photo IDs:
1) Military / veterans ID
2) Tribal enrollment ID for Native tribes
3) Any other photo ID issued by any federal or the state's government agencies
In addition to all of that, if you still are unable to produce an ID, you can still vote with a "provisional ballot" and sign an affidavit declaring your inability to obtain an ID. All of the following are valid reasons:
1) Lack of transportation
2) Disability or illness
3) Lack of supporting documentation to obtain an ID (birth certificates etc)
4) Work or school schedule
5) Family responsibilities
6) A lost, stolen or misplaced ID
7) Applied for an ID but haven't received it
8) Other impediment (write in)
9) Religious objection to being photographed
10) Victim of a declared natural disaster within 100 days of the election
All provisional ballots must be counted before the state can certify the vote count and a provisional ballot can only be rejected by unanimous vote of the board of elections commission that the ID exception form was filled out falsely.
That seems a pretty reasonable system to me given how it's pretty much impossible to interact with the state, the federal government, banks or employers without a photo ID these days.
That seems pretty reasonable, as long as #3 on the third list isn't is interpreted reasonably.
For example there are people for whom a birth certificate was issued, but they don't know where it was issued (e.g., their parents were migrant laborers and they don't know what county or even what state the parents where in when their Mom gave birth). At some non-trivial expense they could probably track it down, but getting a certified copy requires ID that they do not have, so they first have to bootstrap using the alternate procedure for getting the birth certificate without ID. That in turn often involves tracking down various scattered records from long ago and maybe getting affidavits from people who knew you as a child.
If your state won't let you use #3 until you've gone to the time and expense to go through all that and still failed to get the birth certificate I'd say that is not reasonable.
If they will, great.
> That seems a pretty reasonable system to me given how it's pretty much impossible to interact with the state, the federal government, banks or employers without a photo ID these days.
You'd probably be surprised at the number of people who are living a cash only life and work in jobs that are off the record. (Many things you might think impossible for such people are possible if they have a friend or relative who act as in intermediary with some non-cash service they need).
Providing you with a routine notice that applications are repeatedly tracking your location is improving your privacy. If the legal requirement is 1st party applications don’t get special treatment, then yes asking you for the weather app too as opposed to just not asking for any apps is improving your security.
On iOS yes, on MacOS (26) it won't let me. I've not tried 27 yet. There's no option to 'move to bin' or delete, and dragging to the recycling bin does nothing. Same with most of the other supplied Apple Apps on MacOS.
It depends on the question you're trying to answer. The text of the US law which Citizen's United struck down remains on the books today (though has changed since it was moved to a different part of the code, so references have been updated), but the actual effective law has most certainly changed from when it was written to now. Since courts can't write or modify the law, the literal text remains, even if some of that text is effectively stricken as if the text had been removed.
If you want to know the literal text (that may or may not be enforceable), then sure a plain text diff is sufficient to know that nothing at all has changed about federal communication laws since this section was last amended in 2002. But if you want to know what the actual law is, you definitely need more than just a text diff.
See my response to the parent, but git blame solves the issue of "what did they mean" because the person (if alive) can just be asked. The same way git blame is used all the time to ask why a programmer did something some certain way, there's more to code too than just how exactly does it compile/execute. The higher level idea should be to stop legislation seemingly written by nobody, that nobody wants to answer for, but is used to make important decision about lives and livelihoods. Having courts needed to interpret verbiage that was written by living people is completely preposterous. If it's written by dead people, sure, that's a harder problem.
Something akin to this is a big part of the products that companies like LexisNexis or Thompson Reuters charge your lawyers a whole lot of money for. Because for a lot of legal questions, you don't just need to know what the law says now, but what it said at the time of the incident in question. And every legislative body around the country (at least at the time I was working in this space a decade ago) publishes legislative changes in completely different and often times not easily parsable forms. Web scraping and PDF scraping was far more common than you'd think. Some state legislatures published changes in more reasonable forms, and some states contract their official legislative compilation to companies like LexisNexis or Thompson Reuters and work to publish an actual change stream with proper standardized references. There's a lot of manual work that goes into making stuff like this work, a lot of lawyers and other legal professionals manually reviewing that the right pieces were removed or added in the right places, matching up references to parts of the law that might have changed between the time the legislation was passed and the time the change was published and figuring out what order everything actually goes in. And the actual text of the law is only part of the equation. Legal decisions from courts can dramatically impact the reading of the law, or effect effectively strike laws from the books (even if the laws are technically still on the books, just not enforceable). So often the right way to represent a diff of two points in time depends on the question you're trying to answer.
I wanted to do something like this for a single section in Washington law, to show why a particular funding restriction had been added, but was no longer achieving the intended goal. Git alone wasn't enough of a UI, because the 'why' was only in the introductory text of the bill that changed the law, and not in the law itself - and then there was the move of that article to a different section, and a re-numbering of sections, and a change in definition in a different section that affected the scope of this one... fascinating stuff!
I thought legal document versioning software would cover some of these problems but it doesn't seem like a similar enough process.
Following renumbers has to be one of the worst parts of this. As an example, the text of the US code that was modified by the BCRA in 2002 has been renumbered / moved since Citizens United v FEC was decided. But the text itself is the same as it was since the BCRA passed, because courts don't remove the actual law text with their decisions. So if you want to know what parts of the current US code were ruled unconstitutional by the courts in that decision and are therefore unenforceable, you need to first find the text of the BCRA, because the ruling refers to the sections of that piece of legislation. Then you need to find the version of the US code that was on the books when the BCRA was passed to find the section references that the law talks about. Then you need to find the law that renumbered that part of the US Code and find the new parts. Then you need to see if any changes have been applied since (there hasn't really) and then you need to match the changes to the referenced sections in the old version of the code to the equivalent text in the current version of the code, modulo any changes to references that changed as part of the renumbering but are otherwise the same.
I'm not saying lawyers aren't really really expensive, but you don't have to spend a long time digging into just a simple question like "what parts of the law are no longer enforceable after a supreme court decision" before you start to understand why they charge the prices they do.
Are they really “doing everything they can to prevent it”? The Asahi folks have already talked about how some of the things in the boot loader only make sense to allow non-Apple OSes. On top of the fact that the boot loader itself is unlocked when we know for a fact they know how to lock down a boot loader for their own chips since they do it for iPhones and iPads.
It seems to me like they are indeed just “not supporting” it, to the fullest extent possible.
Arguably the thing you’re missing is the 5090 is $1999 MSRP and more like $5000+ retail currently, and then you still need to buy the rest of the computer. This on the other hand is a whole system for $2400 (for the 32gb config). Maybe won’t set the “local LLM” world on fire, but likely to do a lot more for it than the 5090s will for the moment.
Because people love to add slogans, catch phrases and witty sentence fragments, and AI was trained to mimic people. AI has shone a spotlight on it, and because AI isn’t perfect, it tends to overuse and use it where it shouldn’t. But go read news articles, blogs and corporate press releases from before the AI boom and take notice how often AI “tells” also show up there. The internet made hot take mic drop sentence fragments, “witty” turns of phrase and clickbait “it’s not foo, it’s bar” cliches a core part of its lexicon. It really shouldn’t be surprising that it shows up in AI too.
AI is going to be both a boon and a bane for doctors. Its "good enough" behavior will lead to complacency like it does any place where the automated system is "good enough" but the system still wants human validation. This will without a doubt result in some preventable tragedies that will end with more work and check lists (and probably not enough accountability). But there are other places where it will absolutely free up mental energy to focus more on the patient.
I was talking to my own doctor and their experience with a new note taking / transcription AI app they've been using, having worked on medical software before. One of the problems I noticed when designing software then was that software likes its categorized fields, with data entered just the right way and in just the right order. But medical work is almost never that neat and tidy. Patients and other medical professionals give you information in whatever order things come to their mind in, or in whatever order their own system and paperwork displays it. A simple prescription consisting of a patient's name, DOB, medication, medication form, dispensing quantity, refills and dosing instructions might be given to a provider in any order of those fields and no matter what order your software chooses, it won't be the same order as someone else giving it to you. Most providers that used the software I worked on resorted to hand writing everything down and filling it all in later, or having to ask for repetition over and over as they clicked through various fields trying to remember everything before it flicked out of their short term memory or the other person moved on. And as more and more systems and regulations require everything to be entered into electronic records, this has become more of a problem. To the point where you go to some appointments and you often don't even see your doctor's face because they're stuck behind a terminal nodding along as they try to capture everything you say into the specific fields in the system. AI tooling has the potential (and at least from my own doctor's experience, is already showing that potential) to free up the mental effort spent on getting the right data into the right fields. AI can do a great job of understanding that a free text field that says:
Fucitol tab 25mg qid
John Smith 01/01/75
#30 3 months
and a free text field that says:
Fucitol 25mg tablet
30 tabs, 4x per day
3 refills
Smith, John 1975-01-01
say the same things, and get those things into the right fields in the record for you. They still need to go back and check it (and see the previous caveat about "good enough" systems) but by freeing the doctor from the mental load of intentionally categorizing all of the data they're hearing while simultaneously trying to reason through what all that data means and enter it at the same time they have more mental room to actually pay attention to the things the patient is saying, the things they're doing and the things the doctor is seeing.
And one thing I hope is that it makes switching doctors if you need to safer and more effective. The sheer volume of information a new patient can bring with them if they have all their medical records is massive and sorting through it all is likely something we'll never give our providers enough time and money to do. Things will get missed, or doctors will defer (consciously or not) to the diagnosis already listed, even if a more thorough review might reveal the diagnosis was wrong. An AI system designed to review an influx of data with an adversarial eye, or at least an eye towards looking for missed possibilities or potential reasons for the patient's dissatisfaction with the previous provider could go a long way towards helping end the sorts of "I went through 10 doctors all of which told me it was all in my head/I should try losing weight/I can't be experiencing this issue at my age, and then finally the last doctor had just finished reading a paper about how XYZ can cause these symptoms and now I'm finally getting treatment" stories anyone with friends or family with chronic health problems probably has heard more than once.
reply