Here is an excellent and HN-worthy writeup of the argument for legality, and the counterargument that it was an improper booby trap.[1] It seems to me most of the polarizarion on this board could have been avoided had the original article recognized (as does the one linked here) "that the legality or illegality of the pagers attack can only be determined on the basis of a detailed factual analysis and that the relevant facts are still not fully known."
I disagree with @dang's decision to leave the original link up, as it is nearly valuless in framing this discussion.
> I disagree with @dang's decision to leave the original link up, as it is nearly valuless in framing this discussion
I'm open to replacing it with a better link, but the one you've listed here (even though it's a much more in-depth article) isn't about this specific topic.
No, they're basically the same, and this Substack has some additional primary source material the MEE piece doesn't (MEE and this Substack have approximately the same editorial slant).
For whatever it's worth I think it's fine that the resource posted in that comment just makes it an especially valuable comment, without altering the story itself.
The problem is, once you start down that sequence of the AI telling you what you want to hear, it disables normal critical reasoning. It’s the “yes man” problem— you’re even less able to solve the problem effectively than with no information. I really enjoy LLMs, but it is a bit of a trap.
I hit that too. If I asked it about the O2 sensor, it was the O2 sensor. iirc I had to ask if what PIDs to monitor, give all of that to it at once, then try a few experiments it suggested. It also helped that it told me how to self-confirm by watching that the fuel trim doesn't go too high, which was also my cue to shut off the engine if it did.
At no point was I just going to commit to some irreversable decision it suggested without confirming it myself or elsewhere, like blindly replacing a part. At the same time, it really helped me because I'm too noob to even know what to Google (every term above was new to me).
What you are observing is the trick the industry used to get approval for changing LED billboards— they “donate” say fifteen hours per month to public service announcements. This kind of concession is gold to an ambitious public servant, the old prohibitions never stood a chance. The PSA could be “stop electronic billboards” but that was the way they got through high-friction public processes.
My state has a neat legal trick that applies to most major highways: You can set up a big tall sign to advertise but it has to be for a product or service drivers can stop and buy on the premises.
This removes much of the incentive for spamming enormous signs and renting them out to the highest bidder. That may change if it becomes really cheap to put a functional vending machine below.
Manufacturers for 100 years didn’t try to wrap their fridges in ads, or tune the compressor sound to a commercial jingle. They sold mostly honest products to cool your food efficiently.
But when they add an LED display and Internet connection, suddenly they forget about cooling your food and impulsively add a bunch of adversarial functionality, meaning functions that monetize the consumer rather than keeping the food cool.
It’s like the Internet advertising ecosystem is a virus intent on infecting anything and anyone with an Internet connection, making them do bizarre customer-hostile things they never would have done otherwise.
You are way off: it's just about money. For a long time, making appliances was an ok business, making good stuff, selling them, factories running, employment, margins ok, ... and there was progress/innovation to do.
Now that there is not much to update or innovate with, and companies have already squeezed workers in Bengladesh to the max, the only current innovation and additional money source are "connected" and "ads".
I don't see any contradiction between the two takes; I suspect capital pressure will force us into an inhumane dystopia where baseline existence is miserable, and quiet rational thought is a luxury.
The combo effectively enshittified swaths of the Internet, which now is full of robo-pamphleteers acting with anonymous impunity, in ways they never would if sitting face-to-face.
I love the Internet but it normalizes bad behavior and to the extent the CJEU was tracking toward a new and more stringent standard, well earned by the Internet and its trolls.
I don’t really understand the underlying US government program— specifically why in a time of alarm over deficits “we” are enacting new private giveaways of public funds. Cynically, I doubt the folks who enacted this care one whit about folks who will turn 18 in the year 2044, 19 years from now. They only care about pumping the stock market today and winning elections in 2026 by transforming the Federal government into something like a hedge fund with a “save the children” sticker on the front door.
As for the Dells— they really do seem to care about our children and their philanthropy is beautiful.
Maybe, but their economic role might be more like an angel investor or VC— fund a hundred failed efforts and hang on for dear life to the few runaway successes.
The sweet spot would have been an initial term of 14years or something like that, and generous duration thereafter, limited to works that are registered and re-registered on a regular basis.
The analyst is stuck in the past. Genomic solutions are personalized medicine. As long as there are new people, and new combinations of genes, there will be problems to solve.
But imagine all the data, tech and data center companies simultaneously go into receivership. Farfetched, but indulge the fantasy.
At that moment what choice would the government have but to conduct a rescue that at least keeps the lights on, and probably more? What’s the alternative? Extensive data losses, business interruptions— if just a couple of those key companies spontaneously stopped operating, chaos.
If the companies run cash flow positive absent debt service (I assume this is the case), the creditors will be in charge, they can put up more $, or get a loan while they re-structure the company. Either they end up owning it, or they sell it. This can happen to a bunch of companies at the same time.
There would not really be a huge rush if they are cashflow positive, they can take their time.
If Donald Trump used this OpenAI product to-- who knows-- brainstorm Truth Social content, and his chats were produced to the NYT as well as its consultants and lawyers, who would believe Mr. Trump's content remained secure, confidential and protected from misuse against his wishes?
That's simply a function of the fact it's a controversial news organization running a dragnet on private communications to a technology platform.
I disagree with @dang's decision to leave the original link up, as it is nearly valuless in framing this discussion.
[1] https://lieber.westpoint.edu/well-it-depends-explosive-pager...
reply