It's about the worth of what I am receiving from my employer and nothing to do with spending it.
If John makes $100k and lives on $10k, then cost of living increases by 100%. I believe John should be paid $200k, and according to you his salary should go to $110k.
But presumably, you only include dependencies that you trust and those dependencies themselves do their trusting more strictly than you. Trust is built on vetting, signatures and reputation.
That is, at least what we do, in theory. In practice, we cross fingers and let the LLM pick dependencies, are satisfied if it just works and we either update our deps frequently or infrequently.
I hear you, but there has to be some balance between full immunity and no immunity at all. The one thing that comes to mind is rich and powerful people, because they have unlimited resources to sue and ruin the lives of cops, judges and politicians, which would lead to these officials avoiding to hold rich and powerful individuals accountable even when they have committed crimes.
I'm not a lawyer, but what you're describing sounds to me like an example of strategic lawsuits against public participation, just where the targeted "public" isn't a member of the general public but a public servant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_publ...
"would"? There is currently a disparity in how rich and poor people are policed.
I get the point that there should be some limited immunity so they can do their jobs. Debatable, but worth the debate.
The argument about the repercussions of eliminating immunity is logical. It just seems like one of those things where there are multiple factors contributing to undesirable outcomes, and that makes it necessary to talk to experts.
You're so close! Instead of patching the issue maybe let's solve the root problem of spiky power distribution among humans. We don't need to make sure cops have immunity to prosecute powerful people. We need to not have powerful people.
(though realistically speaking yes there's probably some level of procedural immunity that probably makes sense, similarly with business bankruptcies not ruining the people who start the business)
I don't know if anarchy helps in this situation, I actually think you need robust social systems with buy in from citizens to prevent the natural accumulation of power. The fundamental problem is that there's a diminishing cost to acquiring power as you acquire power, this relationship should be inverted. The more powerful you are the harder it should be to get more powerful.
This is basic engineering, you don't want runaway feedback loops, the underlying system is unstable so we need a control system.
His ability to use his wealth to influence the government and the populous would be significantly reduced. There's a big difference between "rich" and "rich enough circumvent democracy."
Don’t you think a far bigger threat to democracy is that government allows this influence? And voters seem to be perfectly OK with both 250M campaign contributions and widespread lobbying?
Whataboutism. Which is funny because it's literally the same problem.
It's somewhat intractable at this point unless or until we can figure out how to structure society in a way that can actually prevent it. Not sure we have the organizational knowledge at this point.
The government used to have better guards in place, but then what happened? They got weakened because of the monied interests already existed were successful at largely capturing the government. Guess what else happened during much the same time period; The government largely stopped breaking up monopolies, and many unions were busted or otherwise weakened or eliminated.
Those are coalitions of politicians, which to an increasing extent are part of the "powerful" group that needs to be overridden. By coalitions I mean coalitions of the actual citizenry.
Unfortunately most of them are bad. The Tea Party is maybe one, for instance. Note that I'm not describing any type of "structure" here. I just mean a group of people who are willing to vote for the same things.
Just know you've gotta prep the phone BEFORE the screen dies :)
First thing I do when getting a new phone is enable ADB and set up permanent trust for my PC's ADB keys so I have this trick available if/when the screen dies. PERMANENT trust - you need to disable "automatically revoke keys" on the phone or they poof.
I've had several Android phones become unusable after a drop due to screen death over the years, and this saves a LOT of hassle.
Did you manage to get it to work without a functioning screen on the phone?
I believe that unless your phone already has debugging enabled and the machine was already added a trusted machine for debugging, you're out of luck for controlling a phone with a dead screen?
I once dropped my phone like 40cm the 100th time and my screen went completely black. However, the touch still worked! After loads of time and comparing to another android phone, i managed to blindly navigate to that blind mode setting and enable it!
I have immense respect for those that are blind and need to interact this way. In the few days I used my phone this way I noticed multiple apps, especially my bank app with a keypad, had completely broken navigation and iirc not even numbered the actual buttons?! So it was a 'swipe right 9 times, double tap, swipe left 6 times' while the TTS was yelling nonsense!
A lot of OEMs will have a shortcut to enable screen reader mode even if the display is cooked (I think maybe both volume buttons at once for 5s?). OTG keyboard can be a lifesaver too, and many modern phones will let you use a USBC to HDMI cable. Way easier if you've pre auth'd for ABD though!
I had a screenshot of my keyboard, I opened it on my computer and zoomed in to match the size of the phone and traced the keyboard on a piece of paper. Then I cut off the letters I needed and typed my password to unlock the phone.
Yeah my screen broken and I was in that situation and you're right; there's absolutely no way to access your phone. If you google it people will talk about workarounds like taking screenshots and accessing them over USB, but that no longer works because USB access requires confirmation on the screen.
Plugging in a display via USB also doesn't work because that also requires screen interaction to output to it (at least on Pixel phones).
The last thing I tried was plugging in a keyboard/mouse which do work automatically, but unfortunately I was using pattern unlock and there's no way to enter that via the keyboard (and good luck doing it with a mouse blind).
Finally the thing that you'd think should work - plugging in a new phone and transferring everything across ALSO requires you to confirm your pattern/PIN on the old phone.
It's absolutely insane. If anyone from Google is watching this.... people break screens!! Give them a way to access their stuff when the screen is broken.
The obvious easy solution is for the "transfer to a new phone" flow to allow entering the old phone's PIN/pattern ON THE NEW PHONE. Jesus.
I think it's implemented now. Last time I transferred from one Android phone to another, I connected them with an USB cable and the new phone prompted me to enter the old phone's PIN. I was confused why, I guess that's the reason?
The old phone's screen was OK though, and I don't remember if I had to use it to initiate the transfer.
This would have saved me a lot of mental anguish about 2 years ago, my phone screen died and I needed about 5 authenticators that were on it just to clock in at my (remote) job and get to what I needed to do the job.
Eventually I solved the issue by blind navigating to screen brightness and turning it all the way up, this made the screen act normal until I could replace it.
The lesson here is to not have a single point of such large failure, like I did.
A query created by a human and reviewed by at least 1 other human becomes static after it's merged. But the query from an LLM is dynamic, it can change between two calls in the same session if the LLm sees a reason to change it, and there is no review pipeline and QA stage.
reply