I thought it was only the US that did anything but meters.

I thought they like being the lighting rod of dispute, so why would they want to rebut the article?

I wonder how hard it would be to rework this advertisements to be what it’s actually used for:

• Immigrants spotted! Administrative warrant issued, ICE deployed!
• Automatic License Plate Recognition with Flock (now a partner), found a “criminal”. Administrative warrant issued, ICE deployed!
• etc.

They are not mutually exclusive. In this case Ross could be a domestic terrorist based on the USC, if not for a castrated Blivens and the DHS trying to use the Supremacy Clause.

This as opposes to the administration saying Good was a domestic terrorist, when by definition she only fits section A and B if you stretch the definition by saying she was going to hit Ross and others in an assassination attempt… Which is difficult as she backed up from him and turned the wheels away from him, and further he put her in jeopardy by standing in from of the car which agents are trained not to do to civilians.

So yes, it could be considered a reign of terror as well, but that is more of a cultural definition, not a legal one.

Also, from the article:

Geoffrey Alpert, a professor of criminology and criminal justice at the University of South Carolina, questioned why the ICE agent would place himself in front of a moving car.

Alpert said the officer’s positioning could be an example of officer-created jeopardy. “The crux of officer-created jeopardy is putting yourself in a position to use force in response to whatever the suspect’s doing, as opposed to just reacting to protect his own life or someone else’s,” said Alpert.

So Ross, who has previously been dragged, decides to put himself in harms way and potentially cause a shooting.

Nice post! I love the extracts!

And congrats to Finland for finding the smoking gun.

I posted this as a perspective on AI that is not given by AI, nor by someone who believes it will stay this way, but nor am I promoting it. I believe it’s more nuanced that just being crap, although it is taking over many things in life. I have used it, I know how to use it for good (keeping it private, local, and to help teach reasoning as well as do the thing that we need done (like dishes, bills, and other bullshit). I’m fully aware it’s a bubble (14 billion to 1.4 trillion for OpenAI alone), dislike it and hate the energy waste. You all just seem to want to keep up the ignorant web user stereotype.
Have fun down voting something you don’t really understand.

Having done my research, and tried it, I’m not an ignorant F*** as I read and engage at least. You just like being a troll.

I think your sentiment and the back end requirements of AI is a big downfall of it, as while your sentiment has validity in many public facing deployments of it there are some things it is actually succeeding at. I speak from experience having used it for several specific use cases which it excels at, but you and others probably don’t have time nor care that this is true. And again marketing idiots out weight the deliberate approach that engineers and others might want, much less the economy might need.

Web use is hard to measure, but by one estimate monthly traffic from search engines has fallen by 15% in the past year. Some of the loudest complaints have come from the news media, an industry in which we acknowledge an interest. But the drought is a wider problem. Science and education sites have lost a tenth of their visitors in the past year. Reference sites are down by 15% and health sites by 31%. Some big names are being gutted: Tripadvisor.com, which recommends the best hotels or beaches, is down by a third; Webmd, which offers reassurance (or alarm) to the poorly, has fallen by half.

…

As the old model buckles, the web is changing. It is becoming less open, as formerly ad-funded content is hidden from bots, behind paywalls. Content firms are reaching people through channels other than search, from email newsletters to social media and in-person events. They are pushing into audio and video, which are harder for ai to summarise than text. Big brands are striking content-licensing deals with ai companies. Plenty of other transactions and lawsuits are going on. (The Economist Group has yet to license its work for ai training, but has agreed to let Google use select articles for one of its ai services.) Hundreds of millions of small sites—the internet’s collectively invaluable long tail—lack the clout to do this.

No one should expect the web of the future to look just as it does today. ai-powered search will rightly shake up some services: business directories, for instance, face disintermediation as answer-bots field queries such as “emergency plumber” or “houses for sale”. But the evaporation of incentives to create content presents a fundamental problem. If human traffic is drying up, the web will need a new currency

…

Bringing a new business model to the web is daunting; it may take a shove from regulators to get started. Yet everyone has an interest in making content-creation pay. Publishers may be the ones complaining now, but if the content tap dries up, ai companies will suffer, too. Some are more vulnerable than others. Whereas Meta can draw on data posted to its social networks and Google owns YouTube, the world’s biggest video vault, Openai relies entirely on others for its content.

If nothing changes, the risk is of a modern-day tragedy of the commons. The shared resource of the open web will be over-exploited, leading to its eventual exhaustion. If that process is not stopped, one of the great common properties of humanity could be gravely diminished. The tragedy of the web would be a tragedy for everyone.

As others have commented, the economist is presenting this as a capitalist issue that requires a monetary fix. The most ironic element to me is that one of the elements of the tragedy of the commons is that is indicates the requirement of a public interest and it’s regulatory interest so the commons can work. So another way to perceive this is that we need a non-capital framework to allow the web to persist. Say perhaps like roads are created as infrastructure to allow the free movement of it’s citizens in a “safe” and organized way, perhaps we should change our perspective on the utility of the we and it’s content. I’m not suggesting that we copy the transportation to the internet as it obviously breaks down, but the need to think outside the capitalist box is apparent. Libraries have been funded both publicly and privately as public interest, and have the capacity to work both for and nonprofit. This adaptation need not just be ‘free’ market driven. Especially as we do not actually live in a free market, but I’ll let others drive down that hole.

How multinational CEO’s instead?

…

The Anti-Defamation League report concludes by offering specific advice that Wikimedia reconsider its approach to sensitive topics. The recommendations include creating a pool of experts on Israel and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The experts should be verified by the foundation and should moderate disputes that arise.

The ADL appeals to the precedent of the COVID-19 pandemic. Back then, page edits on controversial topics were scrutinized by a team of medical experts. Instead of voting by simple majority, a narrow circle of specialists made the decision.

Wikipedia editors are skeptical of these proposals. The ADL is asking too much of Wikimedia, editor Andrei believes:

“I find this solution rather odd. The Foundation’s interference in the administration of language sections is very rare and hardly ever concerns the content of the articles. It just provides servers, domains, and infrastructure.”

Indeed, Wikimedia does not usually take responsibility for resolving conflicts. Despite having the power to completely replace the pool of administrators of an entire language section — which indeed happened in the cases of the Croatian, Chechen, and Chinese Wikis — the Foundation positions itself as a community of authors. It rarely issues statements to the press and regularly responds to defamation suits by citing sources. In the U.S., such lawsuits against Wikipedia almost always fall apart.

However, a lawsuit that is unfolding in India could set a precedent regarding Wikimedia’s legal liability. The foundation is being sued by the local news agency Asian News International (ANI) over an article claiming ANI spreads state propaganda and fake news.

Wikimedia first responded that the foundation “does not add or correct content” and that editorial decisions are made by a “global community of users.” However, the court found Wikimedia itself to be the proper defendant.

The case is being heard in Delhi, and Wikipedians have created a page about the trial. This is a common practice on the platform, but the Delhi High Court considered it an attempt to influence the proceedings and ordered the page to be removed. Wikimedia is now challenging this decision in India’s Supreme Court.

What matters in this process is not the history of a particular news outlet, but the fact that Wikimedia has been compelled to respond to the claims before a judge, says Dr. Aharoni Lir. She notes another crucial point: at the request of the court, the Foundation disclosed the details of the users who had corrected the article. …

I can search it, but do you have a description of what type of finance transaction are being processed this way still?

That’s an idiotic statement. Realism or understanding what realpolitik is in a political situation is far more likely to allow you find and develop change in an organization, as well keep you from wasting your time on useless leverage points. In this case knowing both frames of reference is valuable so that action can be taken, as opposed to just writing five words.

Being halfway between both sides, I can see the need for a monetary model to sustain development, yet I am challenged by the opacity that this feels like. The OP’s point that it feels like a downward slide toward principles compromise is challenging. Especially in light of the enshittification of everything lately, Mozilla needs to do a better job communicating how this is not going down that path and yet also trying to sustain itself.

Correct me if I’m wrong but ladybird is focused on a new browser, and not a new browser that is privacy oriented? Their language is pretty specific about donations and independence, but I didn’t catch anything that specifically denotes privacy.

I’m not an expert, but have read a decent amount on this. Others may have more and better info.

With that said, even if an Article 5 invocation won’t bring the US into your fight, it provides a hefty infrastructure of value to countries in it. From basing, to logistics, to intelligence, to aid, it is valuable. Now the politics of it are complicated and the US can hinder some of that value, but it still means that in Europe if Russia provides an Article 5 reason, other countries in NATO can choose to help in various forms. That’s not nothing. It’s also faster and less arduous then negotiating individual defense treaties with neighbors and others.

So yes, overall probably still worth it. Even if just as an entree into other alliances.

As some who has been out literal in the woods, can someone give me more context?

The PI’s I deal with on Research Vessels almost always get their hands dirty. Both in the lab and on deck, so managing is more of an added responsibility, as opposed to a managerial shift to desk bound life.

Maybe not true for all areas.

Just did. https://www.bbc.com/news/videos/c5yd157rl21o