People understand that everyone makes mistakes and firing anyone who does only leads to people prioritizing hiding their mistakes vs. fixing them.
It’s helpful, whenever you find yourself saying something like, “the only real explanation to me”, to think of a good faith version before assuming that the most cynical take is reality.
I think there are mistakes and then there are mistakes.
There is a point where the postmortem needs to stop being blameless.
Getting things like this wrong is an existential risk to a important institution. We can’t be genuinely concerned about lost faith in institutions and also not hold them to the highest levels of accountability.
The issue is that these areas are optimized for—so we don’t build capacity or the surrounding infrastructure for fallbacks—and relatively small likelihood events have tremendous risk-adjusted costs.
If you have one event with a 10% chance of throwing off the world’s semiconductors, that’s incredibly dangerous and worth talking about. If you have five such things (the quartz mine, bromine conversion, helium supply, etc.), there is a 60% chance that none of those events land.
Even still, it’s worth raising alarm about each and every one of them, because a single failure causes so much collateral damage. But people assume if something didn’t happen, it wasn’t worth prepping for.
I don't understand why it is a crime under current US law.
Prediction markets can only do sports gambling (the vast majority of their volume) because they self-certify under the CFTC. The CFTC doesn't have the same standards of "insider trading" as the stock market, because insider trading is the entire point of business at the CFTC!
If you're trading, like, oil futures or wheat futures or whatever, you are likely doing so specifically because you have inside information about your business needs or production that you want to hedge.
I understand why people are mad about gambling versus someone who has insider information, but under current US law I'm not sure that there is a case to be made.
> If you're trading, like, oil futures or wheat futures or whatever, you are likely doing so specifically because you have inside information about your business needs
Insider trading, in the U.S., is not legally about fairness but about theft. A firm hedging its own positions is using its information for its own purposes. A federal employee trading on what they heard is abusing the trust placed in them by the American people.
> Prediction markets can only do sports gambling (the vast majority of their volume) because they self-certify under the CFTC
Sports betting is still illegal in 11 states. They can only do what they’re doing because of legislation and enforcement lag.
> The CFTC doesn't have the same standards of "insider trading" as the stock market, because insider trading is the entire point of business at the CFTC!
True to some extent, but it’s still illegal to use non-public information gained from your firm to trade on personal accounts.
> Since those who are predicting have to now construct their bets such that they know they can always get run over by an insider.
The average person does not do this. People trade individual stocks all the time, despite every other market participant (banks, hedge funds, etc.) having better information and technology.
It's why institutions like Citadel pay for retail order flow. They know that retail traders don't have an edge and, if anything, often end up being negative signal.
No but sophisticated traders will also get stomped by this. Just because you're a sharp oil trading shop doesn't mean you can combat an insider who knows when Brent is about to spike in price due to insider knowledge.
A lot of stuff does have interstate implications. Especially now that most corporations operate in an interstate fashion.
That said, I agree that it's overused. I personally think that the 9th amendment should be used in a lot of cases, like civil rights, instead of the interstate commerce law.
The supreme court, however, has basically decided that the 9th amendment doesn't really exist.
You could just as easily stuff most of those things under the "general welfare" clause if you do the same rigamarole of years and years of precedent hand-waving. We live in a post constitutional state. The constitution is just something worked to backwards so the guys who function as our priests/gods point to the document because that's the only way to feign some sort of legitimacy to our government.
Ultimately none of us signed the constitution and all of those people that did are dead. It is a religious artifact used by the whig
-god people to argue they are right. Not something followed with faith to the historical context nor literal contract.
(edit: to below trying to compare bad-faith ICC to good-faith general welfare, you must apply similar levels of creativity and bad faith. Ban things through high or impossible to pay taxation. "Tax" behavior to force people to do something in a certain way, make very heavy penalties for not paying the tax, and also make it extremely difficult to buy the tax stamps (this is how they did drug control until they decided to use the new fraud of "interstate" commerce).
For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars … But what would have been thought of that assembly, if, attaching themselves to these general expressions, and disregarding the specifications which ascertain and limit their import, they had exercised an unlimited power of providing for the common defense and general welfare? I appeal to the objectors themselves, whether they would in that case have employed the same reasoning in justification of Congress as they now make use of against the convention. How difficult it is for error to escape its own condemnation!
I agree, from the other side of the aisle. The Constitution is merely a well-guarded piece of toilet paper now. Culture matters way more than legal documents in preserving a nation, and our culture has waned too significantly. I believe we've entered the "Byzantine" phase of America.
> Another case based on interstate commerce: the US ban on racial segregation.
Specifically the federal ban on private segregation. The states would still be able to ban it.
Moreover, is that the sort of thing you even want as an ordinary statute dangling precariously off of the commerce clause instead of making it a constitutional amendment to begin with?
I wouldn't be surprised if this one unironically goes given that Uber/Lyft are fully doing "women only" ride shares now.
Gen Z / Alpha have embraced X-"realism" and fully accept essentialism/reject "intersectionality". They're far more conservative/prudish than millennials, even at their young age.
> Gen Z / Alpha have embraced X-"realism" and fully accept essentialism/reject "intersectionality". They're far more conservative/prudish than millennials, even at their young age.
This does not meet up with my experience with them at all.
Just quick check, what percentage of onlyfans creators are Gen Z / Alpha vs other nonsense year demographics?
First, Gen Alpha is in their teens, so it's kind of hard to say what is happening there or will happen.
Second, there is a growing divide between gen Z males that are skewing conservative in some ways. Their church/religious attendance is up, but overall attendance is still down.
Gen Z females that are the most liberal demographic in history.
At this point I don't see any difference between the two. Modern religions are shaped (warped, really) by the larger organizations that control them.
Sure, the concept of "spiritual/non-scientific belief" isn't a parasite in and of itself, but even if the existing organized religions ceased to hold their sway, and people treated religion as a personal thing without centralized authorities, I still don't see an end to (for example) people trying to get their religious beliefs enshrined in law. That's parasite behavior.
The reason he's saying that is because he doesn't want you to create that structure. He wants you to not create the laws or checks & balances on him because you "trust that he doesn't really want the power".
OpenAI has also repeatedly and quietly lobbied against them.
You linked a vague PDF whose promised actions are:
> To help sustain momentum, OpenAI is: (1) welcoming and organizing feedback through newindustrialpolicy@openai.com; (2) establishing a pilot program of fellowships and focused research grants of up to $100,000 and up to $1 million in API credits for work that builds on these and related policy ideas; and (3) convening discussions at our new OpenAI Workshop opening in May in Washington, DC.
Welcoming and organizing feedback!
A pilot!
Convening discussions!
This "commitment" pales in comparison to the money they've spent lobbying against specific regulation that cedes power.
People understand that everyone makes mistakes and firing anyone who does only leads to people prioritizing hiding their mistakes vs. fixing them.
It’s helpful, whenever you find yourself saying something like, “the only real explanation to me”, to think of a good faith version before assuming that the most cynical take is reality.
reply