I am in two minds about this one. I do think this is a retrograde decision, but I can also see (steelman?) a perspective from the DoW that they were entitled to make assumptions about the inputs they use for planning and the inability to follow through on those assumptions means they can't now "supply" the kinds of intelligence they sought.
King for a day I wouldn't have done this, but the current king (of the hill?) has, and the court aligns to his intent more often than not these days.
The designation means no one else receiving federal dollars can contract with them, not just that the DoD will offboard them as a vendor. It's also a clause the government had already agreed to for over a year prior.
Huh? Leverage to... coerce the company into serving all DoD usecases?
No it's not. They can invoke DPA.
The supply chain risk designation is not logically able to be used to coerce a company into integration. The whole premise is that its integration would be an unacceptable risk, therefore it must be banned from being integrated!
I think I'm saying it's leverage as punishment: "do what we want or this happens to you" combined with "we can un-do this pain, if you do what we want"
Oh yeah, I'm not doubting that's functionally what they're trying to achieve.
I'm saying 1) it's not the only tool they have (they have DPA), and 2) this use of the supply chain risk designation will likely get struck down in court (regardless of these interim rulings like TFA), and Anthropic knows it, so it's not even a great coercive instrument. But such is life under the rule of retards.
Couldn’t help but laugh at the irony here— you’re not wrong! The fact of the matter is that anthropic is an “unacceptable risk”… that the government had contracted with to use with classified milnet.
That contract was already signed and active, the government had already agreed to Anthropic’s terms, and contractors were already cleared to use Claude on the classified networks; only until anthropic started enforcing those pre-existing guardrail clauses (probably for good reason) did Hegseth get pissy.
Guess it should go without saying: if you cannot support clause A.) surveillance of Americans, and clause B.) AI assisted weapons systems, then you are a /supply chain risk/. Lord knows we don’t need heroes here.
But you know, if abiding those terms is a legitimate threat to your supply chain, then why would you agree to those stipulations to begin with ;)
Edit:
So to more respond to your point: big disagree, this can absolutely be used for compliance. The crucial thing you’re missing is that the government /threatened/ to designate them a risk in response to the CEO’s enforcement of the clause. The government gave them a -timeline- to desist and comply… which debases the claim that they are a supply chain risk. The judge is a moron.
The -only- legal argument for the designation is the ugliest one: the fact that Anthropic is willing to play dead canary. “You’re not a supply chain risk a priori, but you’re a supply chain risk for asserting this work violates 1 and 2”
By the way… the same two stipulating terms exist with OpenAI’s contract with them… nudge nudge wink wink
> By the way… the same two stipulating terms exist with OpenAI’s contract with them… nudge nudge wink wink
Actually if you read Sam's statements closely (which you must, because he's a snake), this is not necessarily true.
What he said is that they "are working towards adding" similar protections. He did not say they even proposed them to DoD, never mind that DoD agreed to them. So maybe they did, maybe they didn't, but I've never seen any public info that actually provides clear evidence of it. All the reporting comes back to Sam's rather nuanced statement.
It always amazed me they made ships that just fit the Panama canal. I went though the locks years ago, it was quite a trip (and how a friend got met to go on a cruise)
Yes, but in circumstances where no war is in the offing, digging a giant hole next to 50km of open water begs questions. It would be impossible to get "it's a hedge against the future" over the line.
The same to a lesser extent applies to pipes. You could construct pipes for gas, for some of the heavier oils and crude (what I read suggests pumping crude long distance is painful, it has to be down-mixed with lighter stuff to make it sufficiently fluid) but the fertilizer? that would mean converting dry to wet and back again (nobody ships fluid weight if they can avoid it) -Or ship the inputs: ammonia, and sulphur in some liquid form, and produce the dry goods on the other side.
But, I think pipes have a stronger case than a canal: move the things which are amenable to pipes, into pipes, and bury the pipes.
In times past, this would have been done as a convoy. China and other nations would have stepped to the fore, conducting safe passage with their own ships on the outside edge. But we're not in a world where this kind of thing works for anyone involved. Even offering to cover insurance risk doesn't look to have motivated ship owners to pass. (in times past, the US wouldn't have put itself or it's allies in this position, hence the reference to China)
Don't be fooled by mental images of what a convoy looks like: ships like these maintain massive separation. There's almost suction between hulls moving at this scale, if they were within 500m of each other there'd be chaos if one had to take any evasive action. In reality (I believe) even a convoy consists of a a lot of discrete, clearly demarked and targetable things, not a large mass you can "hide" in.
If the fertiliser production has a point in manufacture when the fluid is amenable to transport, then for sure, that would make sense.
And you are right, if the same amount of capital and energy was invested in Solar/Wind as in Oil, we'd be in a totally different world. It's cents to dollars, considering the size of the tail AND the current investment.
Here in Australia the problem is the royalty stream to the states. Oil and Gas windfalls when the price of equivalent supply (brent crude I believe for oil, not sure what LNG world price defines the limit) hits $100 is just amazing. The revenue stream to the states is enormous. Their motivation to transfer money into alternatives, instead of sucking on the teat, is zero. States without significant oil revenue seem to do more (SA) -States isolated from the national grid seem to do more (WA) but a site with both high insolation, and good wind, but also massive oil, gas and coal fields (Qld) does as little as possible. It's political reductionism. The crony economy is huge, Mining funds the government and the government reflects mining sector interests over all others.
print spoolers typically consume space in /var/ for the files being printed and then stream them to the device through the output filters. The amount of data in play to render a page is not typically that big. Yes, there are corner cases analogous to a zip bomb which can make the print model explode. No, in practice this isn't very normal: printing is one of the spaces where compression of the data is entirely normal. "please print another row of black, where black is that thing I told you before, do that 2048 times and then come back"
"because you said <that>, I won't do <this>" is rarely an issue in these matters. What people say, and what people do, are divorced.
This isn't contract law. The WH can declare victory and stop, or declare victory and continue, or declare defeat and stop, or declare defeat and continue, or declare nothing and {stop, continue} and what the Iranian government say is not relevant. But, stopping or not stopping sending up UAV and sending over missiles and aircraft, IS relevant.
ie, this is just speech. we judge on outcomes not on words said.
[edit: that said, under this administration, the reverse is also true - "because I heard you said <this> I will now do <that> which is totally irrational, but I now have an excuse in my own mind, for what I intended doing anyway." ]
The Supreme National Security Council is quoting the agreement that Trump supposedly agreed to. And if that agreement holds, it is hard to see it as anything but a complete Iranian victory.
Keep in mind, the losers in a conflict have more of an incentive to lie than the winners. The US and Israel seem very much the losers here.
I don't really disagree, but I just want to observe there is no neutral arbiter here. There isn't some platonic ideal "he won, they lost" outcome.
What I think, is that a french metric tonne of value has been sucked out of the world economy, a lot of future decisions are now very uncertain, power balances have shifted, and none of this is really helpful for american soft or hard power into the longer term.
The Iranians have lost an entire cohort of leadership and are going to spend years reconstructing domestic infrastructure, and a rational polity. But, the IGRC has probably got a stronger hand on the tiller. Their natural Shia allies abroad are in shellshock, but still there.
I'd call it a pyrrhic victory for America, on any terms. Wrecked the joint, came out with low bodycount in the immediate short term, have totally ruined international relations (which they don't care about) and probably won't win the mid-terms on some supposed "war vote" -But who knows? Maybe the horse can be taught to sing before morning?
A lot of very fine bang-bang whizz devices got used, and they learned how much fun that is. A lot of european and asian economies learned how weak they are in energy and fertilizer and will re-appraise how to manage that, and there's a lot of fun in that. A big muscly china is watching quietly and we're pretending there's nothing to see there, and meantime the tariff "war" continues to do .. 5/10ths of nothing.
The pace of worldwide alternative energy adoption has gone up. Is that an upside?
The Iranian PR on this is like the DPRK. Except the DPRK wear Hanbok not Chador. The Iranian citizenry has been badly let down. No green revolution on the horizon.
I genuinely do not understand how people read the words
> We received a 10 point proposal from Iran, and believe it is a workable basis on which to negotiate. Almost all of the various points of past contention have been agreed to between the United States and Iran
and conclude that this means anything remotely resembling that Trump "supposedly agreed" to do everything Iran wants.
(Just in case this is somehow the reasoning: "points of past contention" clearly do not refer to the "points" in the "proposal". That's not how English works and not how time works. But that's the only wild guess I can genuinely even think of, after going over it repeatedly.)
If you get into the details, the two biggest "points of past contention" (nuclear enrichment and sanctions) are in the ten point proposal. I only see four ways to resolve that conflict:
1) The US agrees to the resolution of those that Iran publicly claims in the proposal (aka we lost)
2) Iran is lying publicly, and actually agrees to keep sanctions in place and/or give up uranium enrichment (maybe, but the plausible version of this is just reversion to the diplomatic status quo ante - a de facto defeat for everyone).
3) Trump is lying publicly, and there is no agreement on any of this (plausible, but it's unlikely to end better than #1 or #2)
4) This is just a rhetorical trick in service of a stall tactic ("almost all" does not include the ones that actually matter - plausible, but it's unlikely to end better than #1 or #2)
#2 is best case for the US, and represents a defeat in that costs were paid but nothing achieved. It's also a defeat for Iran, but I don't think many of us care about that?
Edit - I guess it is also plausible that Iran's current leadership is sufficiently fragmented that "what Iran agrees to" is not a coherent concept right now. That is just the practical effect of #3 by another route, though.
Just to make sure: you understand that "workable basis on which to negotiate" does not mean anything remotely resembling "thing to which we have agreed", yes?
Yes? "Workable basis on which to negotiate" generally does not include things that directly contradict existing agreements, though. I am pointing to "Almost all of the various points of past contention have been agreed to" to establish that he's claiming some agreement on the past points of contention that matter.
If the "workable basis for future negotiation" contradicts that agreement, then someone is lying about something.
Classic IBM Thinkpad was pretty good. I replaced keypads twice on an X30. I did heaps of inside-the-box fiddling. They never complained.
I think the carved aluminium unibody thing was the death knell. Hard to be fashionably sleek and also easy to mod/fix/replace. But then they made hard a feature.
Stuck down memory and SSD is just evil nickel-and-dime stuff.
I think the write up and rationale and FAQ are near perfect. It's a KISS pure NetBSD model, it's deliberately reductionist and it discusses reasoning and why it differs or is an analogue of other systems.
I probably won't be using it because my core investment on FreeBSD does what I need but I think it's interesting.
I use FreeBSD jails and get a lot of value out of separate network stacks for each (vnet jails).
Would the NetBSD approach here be to lean more heavily on your lan infra to register hostnames with static addresses (pointing at NetBSD host) and then run a host proxy to forward & port-map to the relevant cell? Or is this the wrong kind of use-case for cells?
I don't personally like proxies, intermediaries, but that said they've been entirely normalised by kubernetes/traefik/haproxy type setups. I do find managing the bridge pseudo-devices, and the various bindings, and DHCP/SLAAC a bit painful because I actually don't understand it well.
I use bastille, and it seems to "just work" and I looked at Sylve and it had huge potential. When I ask for some ELI5 on bridge/net stuff, I don't get traction so my confusion remains.
I think a lot of people enable NAT methods which aren't that far removed from a host proxy or port-map. I don't like NAT (see comment above about k8s)
Making way for new hires is a virtuous circle. Making way for AI driven de-hires and no new starters is killing the future.
We need a Butlerian Jihad because we need future wage earners to exist. If people don't have jobs, who is buying the goods and services? AI job displacement impoverishes everyone.
> we need future wage earners to exist. If people don't have jobs, who is buying the goods and services
When you travel around the world, you often see jobs that exist in one country but not in another, for multiple reasons but including automation or self-serve, etc.
It is impossible for us to be confident about what specific jobs (or activities) humans will do 15+ years, but we also know that people need a way to exchange something of value to get something of value and that jobs provide a sense of purpose that people might otherwise not know how to fill.
