(1) Subsection (2) applies if the registered news business corporation for the registered news business makes a request, in writing, to the responsible digital platform corporation for the digital platform service to do any of the following:
(a) ensure that the registered news business corporation is provided with flexible content moderation tools that allow the registered news business corporation to remove or filter comments on the registered news business’ covered news content that:
(i) are made using the digital platform service; and
(ii) are made on a part of the digital platform service that is set up and able to be edited by the registered news business;
(b) ensure that the registered news business corporation can disable the making of such comments;
(c) ensure that the registered news business corporation can block the making of such comments:
(i) by particular persons; or
(ii) in particular circumstances.
(2) The responsible digital platform corporation for the digital platform service must comply with the request.
If only there was something analogous to the inflationary monetary system except for equity instead. Shareholders equity in companies could be diluted just like workers' wages are diluted by inflation.
What bothered me about the urbit system was that updates were "evergreen" and distributed top down from the heiarchy of galaxies and stars. Any person in the chain could make modifications and you were at the mercy of the parent not to send a malicious update to your planet. Also, orthogonal persistance meant data was never really deleted. This didn't seem to me like a personal server much less something I'd want to store my entire digital life on.
In past posts on the fora at urbit.org, it was explained that while identities would be on the blockchain(ie who owns what star or galaxy), OS updates would still flow down from the top hierarchically(with each galaxy or star adding their own modifications). I wonder if things have changed since then? Are operating system updates voted on by the community with hashes of the binaries perhaps stored on the blockchain or in some forum within the community?
"They do worst then grads of previous generation though"
Again, selection bias. Currently everyone except a limited few are encouraged to go to college therefore the effect of selection bias has weakened over time and current grads don't do as well as grads of generations past.
In bad neighborhoods, the carjackers(might not want a autonomous car though) or robbers might just roll a beach ball into the street to stop the car or maybe just a cheap open umbrella. I can imagine those people who practice "rolling coal" doing the same thing to rich autonomous car riders or just throwing a beach ball out the window on an interstate. Lots of possibilities that security researchers will need to consider.
If automated vehicles become popular, I predict new crimes will be added in addition to jaywalking. Cyclists may be restricted and anything else that confuses AI drivers. If certain intersections or sections of road consistently confuse AI drivers, automakers will lobby for ways to change these roadways. I suspect calls for AI regulation by people like Elon Musk are really attempts at regulatory capture to make automated vehicles possible and dominated by the first market entrants.
When we see articles about AI needing to be regulated by CEOs like Elon Musk, it's not because AIs are going to take over the world. It's because AIs alone cannot work seamlessly in certain environments and regulations are needed to make the environment(eg roads, signs, bicycles, pedestrians, other vehicles) conform to the needs of AI.
Hopefully, when these regulations are written, there will be rules added to ensure drivers and mechanics can inspect and debug the computer code in their vehicles.
I've seen the lump of labor fallacy come up many times on HN and often it is a case of simplistic reductions of statements like: "Increased labor supply cheapens wages." to some variation of "They are taking our [finite, limited supply] jobs." What may seem like a lump of labor fallacy(that there is a fixed amount of work) may simply just be an application of the law of supply and demand that does not assume fixed supply or demand. The fixed amount of work is assumed by the hearer of the argument and not the maker.
Additionally, even someone who is under the illusion of the lump of labor fallacy may still instinctively understand the law of supply and demand well enough to vote for his or her best interests.
You are supposed to be afraid because you are competing with ruthlessly efficient machines who may replace you more cheaply. Fear will get you to focus on the AI threat/utopia and not be bothered with minor ethical/efficiency issues.
You are supposed to accept lower wages because of the above.
You are supposed to accept reduced worker safety to keep workers competitive with machines.
You are supposed to invest money in companies marketing AI.
You are supposed to support fewer regulations for innovative AI companies. If this means a few pedestrians get run over by self driving cars, then that is a risk AI companies are willing to accept("Move Fast and Break Things"). Fewer regulations mean AI markets can keep trade secrets protected and not reduced to easily regulated commodities.
You're supposed to buy "smart" products. Smart tvs, smart cars, smart dishwashers, etc. It's the least you can do since dumb products are going away and the new smart products are priced at less than exorbitant rates because AI companies are making up the difference by selling their data about you. It's okay if you don't fully understand these products, that's why they're smart and you are smart for buying something smart. Dumb products are for those who are in a lower socioeconomic class than you and for tin-foil hat conspiracy theorists unless they are expensive(in that case they will have an appropriate expensive label to advertise their high quality: "organic", "vintage", "antique", etc).
You're supposed to not let other issues distract you from the coming AI revolution, especially immigration. AI companies need immigrant labor to program the self-programming AI machines and to provide a human interface to the machines for the machine's owners and users. In some cases at first, the human robots will need to serve as the main AI, until their pure electronic and metal replacements arrive. Cheap human robots can fill the gaps, but regardless of cost, these humans must be controlled rigidly, just like robots.
Trial jobs would be ok for some candidates, but I would be furious if, after spending a lot of time in the interview process, a company tells me only at the end that the job is a contract to hire job. Trial jobs should be advertised up front at the start of the process.
Personally, I like the hackerrank or leetcode automated challenge as an initial first filter. It can be gamed by cheaters of course but that requires some work on the cheaters part. It allows me to start the test at a convenient time and in a standard format. Hopefully, it allows the company to be less stringent about skill sets and other resume keywords and simply test more people. Hopefully it makes job searches harder for resume spammers, cheats, and fakes. I suspect even a few really easy problems from these sites would be a useful filter.
Then perhaps a phone interview so that the company can confirm I'm likely not cheating.
Finally an onsite white board interview or written test or at the computer programming test. Yes I get nervous doing white board interviews but if the difficulty level of the problem is not too great it is a useful filter.
I dislike long take home work because it requires too much of a time sink and it could be abused by employers fishing for ideas, competitor information, or just wanting free work for one of their problem areas. Algorithm tests on hackerrank or leetcode or wherever are still useful practice but take home tests can be too job specific and therefore prematurely requires candidates to commit to learning a particular companies needs without the company committing anything in return.
Questioning candidates about their experience in an informal manner by conversation may be of some benefit, but is likely just testing how well the candidate has prepared various stories about their past employment and past projects. Unfortunately, abandoned projects that taught a candidate a lot and served their intended purpose may not make as good a portfolio or story as completed projects that were just cookie-cutter implementations of projects found in books or tutorials or elsewhere.
The important thing for all of these filters though is that they be carefully calibrated in difficulty to the companies needs and job sourcing pool. If your large top-N company carefully optimizes it's customer funnel with a/b testing but has no real employee hiring sanity checks, then that is not good. Randomly have one employee at the company white board interview another employee at the company from a different department. Secretly test your interview process with known good programmers from outside the company.
Do major tech companies ever consider randomly pulling an employee from another department not well known and subjecting them to the interview process as a QA sanity check?
(1) Subsection (2) applies if the registered news business corporation for the registered news business makes a request, in writing, to the responsible digital platform corporation for the digital platform service to do any of the following:
(a) ensure that the registered news business corporation is provided with flexible content moderation tools that allow the registered news business corporation to remove or filter comments on the registered news business’ covered news content that:
(i) are made using the digital platform service; and
(ii) are made on a part of the digital platform service that is set up and able to be edited by the registered news business;
(b) ensure that the registered news business corporation can disable the making of such comments;
(c) ensure that the registered news business corporation can block the making of such comments:
(i) by particular persons; or
(ii) in particular circumstances.
(2) The responsible digital platform corporation for the digital platform service must comply with the request.