That's overly simplistic. AML laws serve more purposes than simply catching money laundering, they discourage the underlying crime in the first place. Discouraging that can't be counted, yet you are saying is "AML doesn't catch anything!" But you can't prove the negative.
AML also serves to buttress public support in the financial system because the public interest is being served, and at least recently, without AML the housing crisis would be significantly worse.
"Let the criminals put their cash wherever they want, because it's too expensive to stop them" Isn't exactly the rallying cry you think it is
The public option was killed by Arlen Specter, a Democrat, who refused to go along with the other Democrats. Rs were united, which made his defection critical. Kind of like how Joe Manchin throws a wrench in the works every few years in return for oil and coal extraction benefits for his company in WV
The state-run exchanges solution was itself a compromise for Republicans and on the fence Democrats, particularly Arlen Specter, who feared a federal healthcare system would inevitably lead towards universal healthcare. They received their compromise, then refused to implement the exchanges in the hopes that the law would die.
As someone who has studied financial crashes extensively, I agree with you but worry that we lack the regulations. All these bank-ish companies offering credit cards are having impacts on the money supply (every loan they issue becomes an asset somewhere), and at some point their interconnections with the financial system are going to become a risk. I assume most to all fund their loans with money market borrowing, for example.
Then there's the broader question of whether this is good for productivity. If every company is a financial company, who actually makes tangible stuff?
It's more complex than just that. Sure, there's the people trying to make a dollar who are willing to do bad science in order to get the result they want. But there's also the general publication bias against replication studies - who wants to read them, and who wants to do them (they're not usually seen as prestigious academically: most academics want to test their ideas, not those of others.
And then there's cultural differences in which people sometimes see a negative result as a "failure", don't publish it as a result, and instead skew the data and lie their asses off in order to gain prestige in their career. As long as nobody double checks you, you're good.
"regulations slow innovation" is not a valid reason to ignore any regulation one finds annoying.
That said, my problem isn't that he broke the rules. My problem is that, when confronted about having broken the rules, he lied about it then retreated into "why don't you believe the mission bro?" As if his solution is the only possible solution to the problem.
He's full of himself, doesn't care about rules, and gaslights those that criticize him. His messianic do-gooder-ism a bullshit marketing cover for him doing what he wants.
The magazine I worked for at the time was about to publish an article claiming that DeepMind had failed to comply with data protection regulations when accessing records from some 1.6 million patients to set up those collaborations—a claim later backed up by a government investigation. Suleyman couldn’t see why we would publish a story that was hostile to his company’s efforts to improve health care. As long as he could remember, he told me at the time, he’d only wanted to do good in the world.
In the seven years since that call, Suleyman’s wide-eyed mission hasn’t shifted an inch. “The goal has never been anything but how to do good in the world,” he says via Zoom from his office in Palo Alto, where the British entrepreneur now spends most of his time.
Thanks, I hate him already.
A messianic SV hand waver who doesn't care about anything but his special mission, doesn't care about breaking rules, and reflexively gaslights people who complain. As if "Why don't you support the mission bro?" is a reasonable response to "you should protect people's information."
I think it's personality differences. The people who love being in the office probably do best in that environment and likely got promoted into leadership as a result of their interpersonal skills / ability to navigate office politics. Those people cannot fathom why others would dislike going into the office, because it's so natural and normal for them, and they tend to think people complaining about it are just being kind of immature children. After all, the office has been great for them, so it's gotta be great for everyone!
I think it's an introvert extrovert split, primarily, with extroverts more likely to be in leadership roles and therefore dictating to everyone else to live like they do.
I agree completely. AI model trainers should have to pay the people who provide their training materials, and there should be a default assumption of opting out until someone or their company explicitly opts in.
Unfortunately the Peter thiels and all those bizarrely out of touch silicon valley assholes have already effectively scraped the Internet because ethics don't matter if you're special like them, so to a degree regulations are way behind the ball.
That said it's still worth doing, and I'd love to see it done retroactively as well. It's not as if "I forgot that I had a public Myspace 25 years ago" is an implicit user opt-in for some startup to save your data - however anonymized they claim it is (lol!) - and train its AI on it.
I think you're being overly charitable, because he's not really interested in governance writ large. He long ago decided what he thinks the best government system is, and sees everything political through that lens: is this good for my system, or is it bad.
He never actually questions his own system, because he's ultimately an engineer. He's clueless on social structures or systems.
> If you really want to design your own house (a great idea), look up materials around A Pattern Language instead. Learn what makes a great house, then design a plan incorporating those ideas but customised towards your plot and your needs.
I get this is hn where diy ethos runs deep, but please don't do this. Hire someone to design it and oversee construction for you.
Read this as "tacos," came expecting some pointlessly quirky OS filled with taco references (perhaps arguments are "fillings", passed to objects called "shells"), am now very disappointed
For what it's worth, sapiens was generally hated by academic anthropologists but Dawn of everything is generally hated by everyone else. Graeber was always expressly advocating for one specific (anarchist) viewpoint in his work, and that book suffers mightily for it.
Don't take anything in that book as true, because I've read lots of academics losing their minds over how much he glossed over or just ignored contrary evidence.
We truly do live in an incredible time. The first human immune to aging has likely already been born. Hypothetically, given enough luck, an immortal human probably walks among us. We're that close to being able to genetically modify everything.
No, this is a terrible metaphor, because the 14th amendment in this example doesn't exist.
Imagine a US without a constitution, but instead it just has a big body of case law and precedent to go on. The judiciary's role is to adjudicate when that case law contradicts itself, and to decide if a given new law contradicts the rest of the case law.
The Knesset is limiting the judiciary's ability to review such things, which to an American is now analogous to Marbury v Madison being decided unconstitutional.
Amazing how, even here, the arguments made about this issue are disingenuous to outright misleading.
What issue specifically are the conservatives in Israel mad about? Settlements.
It's not about high political principles or abstract questions of balance of power. It's conservatives mad that the supreme court keeps finding settlements illegal.
That's it. That's all it is. That's why they care about it now, as opposed to any other time in Israel's history. The ultra Zionists are in power and they want to cement as much Jewish settlement for as long as they can.
AML also serves to buttress public support in the financial system because the public interest is being served, and at least recently, without AML the housing crisis would be significantly worse.
"Let the criminals put their cash wherever they want, because it's too expensive to stop them" Isn't exactly the rallying cry you think it is