^ This. The Feds are so utterly gridlocked in culture war nonsense and whatever dumb bullshit Trump is up to that they cannot effectively govern. States and activists groups are trying to address actual problems the country has, instead of just playing political games on Twitter.
To be fair, the CEO of UnitedHealth Group was murdered with a 3D-printed handgun. He made $10 million in 2023, or about 100 times the median salary of a UnitedHealth employee.
This bill is performative legislature not because of pipes and nails, but because professionally manufactured guns are widespread in the US. Criminals in the US overwhelmingly choose this option.
Criminals have tons of options, including straw purchasing a CA compliant gun, straw purchasing a non-CA-compliant gun from Nevada, or just throwing a brick through the window of the nearest pickup truck with a Glock sticker on it.
I know no such thing. The number one type of gun death is by far, suicide. When a gun owner takes a gun home (or in this case, prints one) statistically speaking they are more likely to use it to end their own lives or harm themselves more than anything else.
You could make a similar case for this as was made for the banning of highly toxic coal gas in the UK in the 1960's. Most suicides are acts of distressed individuals who have quick, easy access to means of ending their own lives. The forced changeover from coal gas to natural gas is largely credited with a reduction of suicide by 40% after it was done. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC478945/
I don't think 3d printed guns have been around long enough to really provide meaningful data on whether this law will be effective, and on the whole, I'm not thrilled about it. But again, as was originally commented: this is an issue where states are, perhaps ineffectively and ineptly, attempting to solve what they see as problems, under a federal government that has shown itself incredibly resistant to common sense gun regulation that virtually everyone, including the gun owning community, thinks is a good idea.
> The forced changeover from coal gas to natural gas is largely credited with a reduction of suicide by 40% after it was done.
The mechanism of that reduction very well could be reducing the level of depression in the populace and thus suicidal ideation, rather than just making the means less handy (or of course, some combination). Coal gas, like any other gas used for combustion, doesn't burn perfectly and UK homes likely had persistent amounts of carbon monoxide roughly all the time since heat gets used not-quite-year-round.
> What historical precedent is there for infringement of Constitutionally-enumerated rights of others based on suicides?
There is no requirement that a precedent exist for limiting personal freedoms for the sake of safety. We infringe personal rights in the name of public safety all the time, not the least of which is current, existing gun regulations, all the way down to far more benign shit like speed limits, and not letting people scream "fire" in a theater. The 2nd Amendment was itself a modification to the constitution, ratified some time after the constitution itself. Hence the "amendment" part.
And as numerous gun activists have pointed out before me: The individual ownership interpretation goes only back to the 2008 ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, and is not itself law, merely judicial precedent. The right for every single American to own a gun is not enshrined in any law, merely an interpretation of a law, and the law itself was written in an era of single‑shot, muzzle‑loading firearms, not modern semiautomatic rifles, and further, it was written to promote the creation of, and I quote, "well-regulated Militas," not "Ted up the street who owns the gas station."
Further, even if it was spelled out, in the 2nd Amendment, in clear words, that every single American had the innate right to buy and use an AR15, that does not make it unimpeachable or forever carved in stone: We can change that. We can amend the amendment, hell, we could reverse it entirely. The problem of gun violence is a hard nut to crack, and the culture of American gun ownership is long standing and on the whole I myself quite like guns. That said, I think they're far too easy to get right now, and I am far from alone in that opinion.
As far as I understand it, yelling "fire" in a crowded theater has not actually been legally tested. This was a non-binding analogy used in the decision of a supreme court case that found it was not a violation of the 2nd amendment to prosecute someone for speaking out against the draft (which was later overturned for obvious reasons).
The fact that the federal government is unwilling to restrict guns and other real causes of ongoing public health crises (such as massive passenger cars and trucks) even as the deaths pile up does not mean that any level of government should be piling onerous regulations onto other things that demonstrably cause essentially zero harm at the macro scale, such as 3D printers, non-commercial/non-military UAVs, and so on.
If the number of people killing themselves with 3D printed guns is not literally zero or vanishingly small at most, I would be very surprised.
Can confirm the utter hell it is to shop for women's clothing. I started transitioning at the ripe old age of 36, and up until that point, have obviously bought clothes for men. My entire fucking life I have bought XL shirts and jeans with a 38-44 inch waist, shorter legs. Never had an issue.
Womens sizes... like Jesus Christ, I don't know how ANY women tolerate this shit. It's completely made up. A size 0 in one brand feels similar to a size 3 in another, feels similar to Large in another, feels similar to -1 in another. Anything you buy and like, you effectively have to pray they keep making forever, and always buy from that brand or you risk getting something else that doesn't fit correctly.
I've never shopped a product category that feels so utterly hostile to consumer comprehension, except MAYBE microtransactions in videogames. And I'm not meaning to be dramatic, that's the only other type of market I've experienced in life where it feels like my attempts to understand what I'm buying are being deliberately frustrated like this.
As a trans woman who started transitioning at 43... I agree 100%.
This article mostly discusses waist size, for which I'm in the lower quartile. But after 40 years of testosterone poisoning my underbust is above the median. Finding clothing that fits and is flattering is really difficult!
It's intentional, to force you to engage a salesperson, and that salesperson knows all the jargon and unnecessary variations and how to size clothing that fits you. Once you have a positive transaction like that, it gives the company the opportunity to get a very loyal customer out of you, and it's the more pricey and "exclusive" brands. 100% emotional manipulation - they piss you off on purpose so they can seem like a hero and set you up with clothing that feels and looks good, but the specific fit will only match their numbers, and maybe even only their numbers for that season. How about ensuring that you can match someone who wears XL with an L right after holiday season, or hit them with an XL in the fall to set them up for a change during the holidays, etc.
The schemes are ruthless and never end, and it's all arbitrary fashion. In some ways, it's a lot easier being a guy.
Also, if it actually worked, Tesla's marketing would literally never shut up about it because they have a working fully self-driving car. That would be the first, second, and third bullet point in all their marketing, and they would be right to do that. It's an incredible feature differentiator from all their competition.
More importantly, we would have independent researchers looking at the data and commenting. I know this data exists, but I've never seen anyone who has the data and ability to understand it who doesn't also have a conflict of interest.
> For example, in one project, PRs have to be submitted to the "next" branch and not the default branch. This is written in the CONTRIBUTING.md file, which is linked in the PR template, with the mention that PRs that don't respect that will be close. Most if not all submitters of low-quality PRs don't do anything once their initial PR is closed.
Few things in life are as reliable and trustworthy as the laziness of others.
It's just the same community of people who believe they are unable/it is beneath them to acquire skills because of some impending super-automation that will let them do everything great that they have envisioned but have previously been stifled by the aforementioned lack of skills moving from one hype-bubble to the next.
And, you know, if it was actually mobilized to find lost puppies, I'd be all for that shit. But that's not what it's for. It's for helping cops find poor people, or ICE find Mexicans, or whatever bullshit is making the headlines in 4 weeks.
FWIW, I don't like being a tech downer/skeptic, but every fucking thing is like this now. Every social media is being turned into surveillance. Every cloud-based application, no matter how useful, is bending over so the state can shove it's hand up it's ass and turn it into yet another way for the Christofascists to shove their bullshit into my life. I'm fucking tired, y'all. I'm tired of finding something cool and interesting, and then needing to audit the entire backend to see if my friends and I are endangering ourselves by engaging with it. I'm tired of seeing something fucking useful, a goddamn video doorbell, and being like "oh that's pretty fucking nice!" and then having to box it up years on because the company that built it is going to turn my porch into a node in the nationwide Good Citizen network.
And it's asymmetric because they seemingly NEVER get tired. There's just a whole like 1/3 of the population out there that seemingly never even sleeps, they're just constantly trying to figure out how to make my life just slightly fucking worse, either for profit or to advance their weird evangelical agenda.
I'm so, so, profoundly sick of these freaks.
Edit: And please just SPARE ME the both sides horseshit. Yeah both sides have problems, but one side is fucking dragging us back to 16th century social politics, and THEY'RE the ones I'm sick more of.
I don't see Ring as a politics problem, I see it as a policy problem. Just because something is legal in the federated, ad hoc instance doesn't mean it is advisable to systematize.
Preemptively, the exact sort of "BUT BIDEN BAD" horseshit occurring elsewhere in the thread. And again, yes, Biden bad. Biden is an inept old man who was far out of his depth, who failed, completely, to hold anyone accountable for the atrocity against the Republic that was January 6th. But again, he, and to be sure, the Democrats as a whole, failed that, and whilst that is true, the other side is currently ushering in the end of American global influence and they're going to make it so no American citizen will EVER be able to own ANYTHING EVER AGAIN. So I am simply not entertaining this "both sides" horseshit anymore.
Both sides DO have problems. One has distinctly WAY more fucking problems, and also, WAY more fucking power. If pointing out this obvious fucking reality makes me partisan, or biased, whatever. Partisan I am.
If I'm to be marched into a meat grinder I at least reserve the right to tell the people doing it to me they fucking suck.
It's not a partisan issue. From leftist utopias to god-fearing Texan ranch lands, the police are abusing power and harassing innocent people. Trying to bring religion and partisanship (in one word, even) doesn't help your message.
I'm sorry I'm having a hard time remembering the role leftists are playing in the US right now what with the Executive, Congressional and Judicial branches all being stacked to the tits with Republicans, right up to the top with our dementia-addled conman of a president, sleepily signing into law the policies that will see us excised as the center of world economics.
One was much further gone and the people talking about Trump now were silent about it. Biden barely appeared for months at a time, and even then stage managed heavily, and it still went wrong, and Trump is constantly on camera often ad libbing. Not saying he's great at ad libbing, but they couldn't be more different in terms of communication performance.
are the christofascists in the room with us? you don't think marxists use this technology for nefarious means? chinese social credit must be a myth.
the both sides thing is right, you dont remember the lockdowns over a cold, mandated behavioral changes, and countries sending people to "isolation camps" and pressing digital id?
yeah tho its just the "christofascists" huh?
you people only care when illegal invaders get targeted. your outrage is performative.
Yep. Anyone got alternatives? I love the convenience of a video doorbell but I really really would like to not help the police or ICE or anyone else for that matter unless I decide it's a good idea.
The self-hosted and home-automation and home-assistant subreddits are _full_ of discussion threads on this. The good news is that you have a TON of options to pick from. The bad news is that they're all deficient in one way or another so you really do have to spend a bit of time to figure out who executes best on the things you care most about.
If you don't mind the lock-in, Unifi is nice. Reolink (and the other DaHua re-brands) usually leave a lot to be desired in terms of software / quality but they are cheap and they reliably spit out a regular video stream that can be used with just about any software. Just don't let them onto the WAN!
Are there any such systems for general users that don't want to manage or maintain such systems?
Alternatives really need to be for the masses that have little Knowles in server hosting.
This is one reason I invest in Linux Smartphone company's that are work towards a clean solution for the masses. Daily drivers that are satisfactory for us build the stepping stones to walk to the alternative.
UniFi is simple to keep running and updated. It’s mostly plug and play as long as you have Ethernet lines. You sometimes have to hit update in the iPhone app.
Reolink has doorbell cameras[0] that you can keep disconnected from the internet. They also have some pretty useful local recording hubs if self-hosting is not your deal[1].
Reolink also fixed a problem with some of their cameras that prevented them from working with scrypted fully. I have a bunch now completely isolated from the internet and linked through HomeKit.
Got the UniFi Doorbell from Ubiquiti and I'm really happy with it. It's hooked up to my Dream Machine, records video on disk and I access it via Tailscale. Not paying any subscription and it doesn't live in a cloud.
you can use a company that is self hosted like Unifi and have complete control over your data, still have remote access, and not pay a subscription. “self hosted” scares people off but its literally a box you plug in and forget about. Pretty trivial.
I dont understand why anyone chooses Ring when the costs of Unifi are so much better.
The ring app also sucks imo and all their hardware is quite slow.
Normal door bells are pretty great and have less overhead and maintenance...
All tech puts it's best foot forward, some of it's really nifty, but a camera on every street corner is always going to pose more risks than it's worth IMO...
It's work to go back to the old ways but I think this is one we step we should really all take.
I think your take on cameras is legitimate, but from my home office I can't hear my doorbell if I have the door closed or if I have music playing at even a low volume. Installing a smart doorbell that notifies me when rung was a significant upgrade over the old doorbell.
Frigate is incredible. I have 3 instances of it (different homes across the family) running using various amcrest and reolink local-only PoE and Wifi cams. I access the remotely using wireguard. One is running on a 2017 miniatx box (Intel i7-7700T) using openvino to do local-only object detection with the 2017 intel CPU. One is using a Beelink EQ14 Mini PC, Intel Twin Lake N150, also using openvino for object detection (people, dogs, cars, etc). One is using a nvidia 5070 gpu. All notifications are processed via the home assistant integration.
Truly top-notch quality, full-featured, very low maintenance, easy to set up, cheap to operate. I'm glad so many people are using it now.
For video doorbell I just have a cam that can see the front door and I drew a box around the area I want notifications for. When a person enters the box, I get a notification and snapshot.
Reolink with Frigate NVR. Can also put Home Assistant on the same box. Pretty much any 12+ gen intel CPU with QSV should be able to handle the encoding for streaming to your device. Probably will want to use tailscale so that you don’t have to open any ports.
Hard agree. I have their doorbell and some of the wifi light fixtures (that go into mains power). They integrate great with home assistant and record locally.
We've got an analogue video phone on our apartment. Works flawlessly. No digital path other than the ring selection. Has a flat monochrome CRT which is kind of cool.
I made it half a century without a doorbell in my phone. I don't need it now.
Eh. I have a Logitech Circle View, and appreciate seeing whether it's a delivery person or some rando selling vacuum cleaners. It also pops up a picture of the person on our TV and chimes my phone, so even if we have the music up or we're not at home, we can still see that someone's there. I like these.
I’ve been pretty happy with Reolink. No subscription required and uses local storage. Notifications are done through smtp which works pretty well. Mobile app is pretty solid as well.
The difficult lesson is that getting off the treadmill of always chasing greater convenience is the only way to stop the bleeding of increasing dependence on technology.
None of these agencies get your video data without your consent. The feature was designed so they have an easy way to present you the request for footage.
Unfortunately a portion of the information getting circulated is the complete opposite.
> None of these agencies get your video data without your consent.
You certainly can't be sure of that. In fact, it is almost certain that these companies provide the data they collect to the police and government agencies data, often without warrant.
I'm certain they get your video data without your consent when the agencies have a warrant. I think it's very likely that they won't necessarily require a warrant, either.
Consider the Nancy Guthrie case. The owner wasn't around to give consent, and the camera didn't even have an active subscription, yet law enforcement was still able to recover video from Google's systems.
The only way it could be as you say is if the video was only stored locally without any remote access, or if the video was encrypted with keys only you control. Google clearly is not doing this. I really, really doubt Amazon is.
Yes, for now. But ultimately you have no control or say over these features because you do not own the software or data. You must have pure blind faith that this will be the way it continues to work.
If other people are cool with doing things without any reasons and based on pure trust, that's on them. But that's not gonna be me
I don't think they're confused or lying. I think they're ideologically driven buffoons, the preferred recruits of all fascist administrations. They don't care about American manufacturing, and they don't understand economics. They want to advance their agenda.
Like, even the propaganda by fascists claiming fascism makes for good policies is bad. Germany under the Reich, completely setting aside the human atrocities, was a fucking SHIT SHOW of a nation state.
Look I'll fully cosign LLMs having some legitimate applications, but that being said, 2025 was the YEAR OF AGENTIC AI, we heard about it continuously, and I have never seen anything suggesting these things have ever, ever worked correctly. None. Zero.
The few cases where it's supposedly done things are filled with so many caveats and so much deck stacking that it simply fails with even the barest whiff of skepticism on behalf of the reader. And every, and I do mean, every single live demo I have seen of this tech, it just does not work. I don't mean in the LLM hallucination way, or in the "it did something we didn't expect!" way, or any of that, I mean it tried to find a Login button on a web page, failed, and sat there stupidly. And, further, these things do not have logs, they do not issue reports, they have functionally no "state machine" to reference, nothing. Even if you want it to make some kind of log, you're then relying on the same prone-to-failure tech to tell you what the failing tech did. There is no "debug" path here one could rely on to evidence the claims.
In a YEAR of being a stupendously hyped and well-funded product, we got nothing. The vast, vast majority of agents don't work. Every post I've seen about them is fan-fiction on the part of AI folks, fit more for Ao3 than any news source. And absent further proof, I'm extremely inclined to look at this in exactly that light: someone had an LLM write it, and either they posted it or they told it to post it, but this was not the agent actually doing a damn thing. I would bet a lot of money on it.
Absolutely. It's technically possible that this was a fully autonomous agent (and if so, I would love to see that SOUL.md) but it doesn't pass the sniff test of how agents work (or don't work) in practice.
I say this as someone who spends a lot of time trying to get agents to behave in useful ways.
Well thank you, genuinely, for being one of the rare people in this space who seems to have their head on straight about this tech, what it can do, and what it can't do (yet).
Can you elaborate a bit on what "working correctly" would look like? I have made use of agents, so me saying "they worked correctly for me" would be evidence of them doing so, but I'd have to know what "correctly" means.
Maybe this comes down to what it would mean for an agent to do something. For example, if I were to prompt an agent then it wouldn't meet your criteria?
It's very unclear to me why AI companies are so focused on using LLMs for things they struggle with rather than what they're actually good at; are they really just all Singularitarians?
Or that having spent a trillion dollars, they have realised there's no way they can make that back on some coding agents and email autocomplete, and are frantically hunting for something — anything! — that might fill the gap.
> What does it mean for us? For soceity? How do we shield from this?
Liability for actions taken by agentic AI should not pass go, not collect $200, and go directly to the person who told the agent to do something. Without exception.
If your AI threatens someone, you threatened someone. If your AI harasses someone, you harassed someone. If your AI doxxed someone, etc.
If you want to see better behavior at scale, we need to hold more people accountable for shit behavior, instead of constantly churning out more ways for businesses and people and governments to diffuse responsibility.
Who told the agent to write the blog post though? I'm sure they told it to blog, but not necessarily what to put in there.
That said, I do agree we need a legal framework for this. Maybe more like parent-child responsibility?
Not saying an agent is a human being, but if you give it a github acount, a blog, and autonomy... you're responsible for giving those to it, at the least, I'd think.
How do you put this in a legal framework that actually works?
What do you do if/when it steals your credit card credentials?
The human is responsible. How is this a question? You are responsible for any machines or animals that work on your behalf, since they themselves can't be legally culpable.
No, an oversized markov chain is not in any way a human being.
To be fair, horseless carriages did originally fall under the laws for horses with carriages, but that proved unsustainable as the horseless carriages gained power (over 1hp ! ) and became more dangerous.
An agent is not an entity. It's a series of LLMs operating in tandem to occasionally accomplish a task. That's not a person, it's not intelligent, it has no responsibility, it has no intent, it has no judgement, it has no basis in being held liable for anything. If you give it access to your hard drive, tell it to rewrite your code so it's better, and it wipes out your OS and all your work, that is 100%, completely, in totality, from front to back, your own fucking fault.
A child, by comparison, can bear at least SOME responsibility, with some nuance there to be sure to account for it's lack of understanding and development.
I'm glad that we're talking about the same thing now. Agents are an interesting new type of machine application.
Like with any machine, their performance depends on how you operate them.
Sometimes I wish people would treat humans with at least the level of respect some machines get these days. But then again, most humans can't rip you in half single-handed, like some of the industrial robot arms I've messed with.
> Who told the agent to write the blog post though? I'm sure they told it to blog, but not necessarily what to put in there.
I don't think it matters. You as the operator of the computer program are responsible for ensuring (to a reasonable degree) that the agent doesn't harm others. If you own a ~~viscous~~ vicious dog and let it roam about your neighborhood as it pleases, you are responsible when/if it bites someone, even if you didn't directly command it to do so. The same applies logic should apply here.
I too, would be terrified if a thick, slow moving creature oozed its way through the streets viscously.
Jokes aside, I think there's a difference in intent though. If your dog bites someone, you don't get arrested for biting . You do need to pay damages due to negligence.
Which results in people continuously getting new pitbulls which attack hundreds of thousands of people a year, often with life-changing injuries, and kill about a hundred. We should hold dog owners more responsible.
Their proposal was not let's have a legal framework. Their proposal was the legal framework should be the operator would be liable always. It was not an example. They wrote 3 examples how it would work. You wrote 0 examples how it would not work.
* And the situation at hand where an agent writes a mean blog post.
Straight liability isn't always correct. Who is liable for the crash when the car's brakes fail? When a dog bites, you are not charged with biting (though you can get some pretty serious other charges) . If a bot snarfs your credit card credentials, what's the legal theory who gets the blame for the results? Idem the mean blog post.
With this said how do you find said controller of an agent? I mean trying to hunt down humans causing shit over national borders is difficult to impossible as it is. Now imagine you chase a person down and find a bot instead and a trail of anonymous proxies?
reply