> 1) software that makes it easy to do for the layman (browser extensions etc.), and

It's already a given that this only works on a locked-down device. Making it a simple binary "is this device owned by a minor" switch means parents will actually be able to understand it.

> 2) scams and malware that target children offering a "bypass" to access adult websites

And advertising to children should also be banned, so they won't be exposed to such scams, among other things. Thankfully this header lets the site know if they're breaking the law by showing scam ads, which makes prosecution super easy.

> I think this would end up similar to the Do Not Track header which ultimately no one cared about or took seriously.

Oh, of course none of this works unless it has the teeth of law to back it up.

Most of the tricks seem like they'd work in the cooling direction too. They amount to insulation and thermal mass. You would need AC to actually lower the temperature, but those improvements would let you run the cooling on a lower duty cycle.

I don't think Trump is explicitly an asset. He just likes oligarchs and dictatorial strongmen, and is usually the dumbest man in the room. There's no doubt that there are ties there, but Trump is not a loyal man. These things combined means he can swing back and forth between doing Putin favors and being genuinely upset by perceived slights, then back to friends when Putin gets his ear to smooth things over.

Rather than specifically being a Russian asset, he's an asset to the last charismatic man he remembers speaking to.

> he's an asset to the last charismatic man he remembers speaking to

That's the most succinct reasonably believable take that explains his behaviour.

I am convinced Vlad Vexlers analysis of Trump's NPD gets to the core of it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmTeg0B9tH8

He is the ultimate useful idiot. And as such he is a most valuable asset for Russia

1) You don't deport them, you don't ignore them, you document them. Then you let them live their lives. They're people, not a mold outgrowth that needs culling.

2) Check those stats a bit more closely. The vast majority of "deportations" were people turned away at the border.

Would you support deporting people who are criminals? Or have no intention of ever working and just want to live off various welfare programs? Trying to find some common ground here.

Nope. Access to food, water, shelter, and freedom of movement are fundamental human rights. I'm not a proponent of executing useless eaters. If you commit a crime with a prison sentence then you serve that sentence where you committed the crime.

Thanks for taking the time to clarify your position.

So if China or some other country decided to send 10 million people here for whatever reason, you think our official policy should be to welcome then in and provide them food, shelter, etc...?

What about 100 million people?

Should they also be given citizenship and right to vote in addition to food/shelter?

The only issue would be logistics. Getting supporting infrastructure and housing set up. But yeah, ultimately. More hands, more consumers. Why wouldn't we want as many citizens as possible, we certainly have the land for it.

Yeah, sure, if Chinese people were ants in a hivemind that strategy might work.

Putting aside the blatant unconstitutionality of the question, how often does "should the US be legally annexed by China" come up on the ballot?

Another hypothetical is what if those 100 million turn out to be right wing radicals.

> 1) You don't deport them, you don't ignore them, you document them. Then you let them live their lives. They're people, not a mold outgrowth that needs culling.

I don't think that's a policy that would get majoritarian support in the US. The only people who can and should get deported are those who are not already not authorized to be here. If you don't deport them, it's functionally equivalent to an open-borders policy. Do you want more MAGA? Because open-borders is how you get more MAGA.

What you're proposing is also roughly analogous to a policy of not evicting squatters. If someone breaks into your house and decides to start living in one of your bedrooms, are you going to want them out or give them a key? The squatter is a person too, not a mold outgrowth that needs culling.

> Because open-borders is how you get more MAGA.

Pretending that immigrants are the underlying cause of every societal failure is how you get MAGA. Enabling that big lie bolsters it.

And I don't think I can enumerate the ways in which an occupied house are different from a country and unsuitable for the metaphor you're trying.

> Pretending that immigrants are the underlying cause of every societal failure is how you get MAGA. Enabling that big lie bolsters it.

What are you going to do, win elections by lecturing everyone about how they're wrong and they need to think just like you? People thought the Biden administration's immigration policy was too lax, and that was a major contributing cause to the second Trump term.

Deporting people who are in the country illegally is a no brainer. If you don't want that, get the law changed. Until then, it's not wrong to deport them.

Now, that doesn't mean deportation should be the only or even the main method of immigration enforcement (personally, I like the idea of putting more burden on employers).

> And I don't think I can enumerate the ways in which an occupied house are different from a country and unsuitable for the metaphor you're trying.

Oh of course, it's always too different if you want it to be. That way, you can continue to feel righteous.

> Deporting people who are in the country illegally is a no brainer. If you don't want that, get the law changed. Until then, it's not wrong to deport them.

Enjoy this little cognitive dissonance:

You could also change the law make them legals eg. after X years of work, no criminal record and citizenship tests.

This would completely disable the current ICE gestapo and would have prevent soo much suffering. But i can imagine what you must be thinking now: But they came here illegally, this is harm to our society enough.

> What are you going to do, win elections by lecturing everyone about how they're wrong and they need to think just like you?

I'm partial to the strategy of selling voters on a set of policies that will improve their lives and address their problems. Unfortunately neither party in my country is keen on that idea.

> People thought the Biden administration's immigration policy was too lax, and that was a major contributing cause to the second Trump term.

People thought that once they were told to think that. It's an easy sell to blame everything wrong on the scary dirty foreigners. When people are dissatisfied populism wins, regardless of whether the talking points are rooted in reality. The responsible thing to do is try to get people on board with populist ideas that help rather than hurt.

> I'm partial to the strategy of selling voters on a set of policies that will improve their lives and address their problems.

It's a seductive idea, but it's the attitude of an authoritarian technocrat. However, the US is supposed to be a representative democracy, which requires being sensitive to the problems voters have, as voters see them. And that's probably a big part of Trump's actual appeal. My understanding is at his rallies and in his rhetoric, he gave the appearance of being responsive to many concerns that had been willfully ignored or denied for a long time (for instance: free trade dogma, which destroyed a lot of things and insisted people be satisfied with the easily-quantified cheap junk they were being given).

> People thought that once they were told to think that.

Don't pretend your thoughts are any more independent than those of the people you're othering.

There is broad support for Dreamers. It's not as simple as deport everyone here illegally and the public seems to understand that.

> There is broad support for Dreamers. It's not as simple as deport everyone here illegally and the public seems to understand that.

What the GGP was advocating was much broader than that. What's sympathetic about the Dreamers is the non-consensual nature of their position (their parents took them here) and many of them have little to no connection to the country they'd be deported to.

That logic doesn't apply to, say, the 3.5 million illegal immigrants that arrived between 2021 and 2023 (https://www.pewresearch.org/race-and-ethnicity/2025/08/21/u-...), but those are people the GGP would "document not deport."

Cute.

1. Entering a country without proper documentation is a crime. Therefore all "undocumented immigration" is by definition criminal.

2. Removing criminals is paramount to a safe society and a justice system that is respected.

3. "Documenting them and letting them live" undermines legal immigrants who likely worked very hard to integrate culturally, establish themselves, and do the proper LEGAL paperwork. These legal immigrants have stringent reporting requirements, need to be careful about even minor crimes (excessive speeding tickets even!) etc. How is your proposal remotely fair to them?

I don't understand why this is a controversial opinion at all. I have yet to meet a legal immigrant that isn't okay with booting anyone that isn't legal out. A country without border control is NOT a country.

> "Documenting them and letting them live" undermines legal immigrants who likely worked very hard to integrate culturally, establish themselves, and do the proper LEGAL paperwork.

It's a shame those people had to work so hard to be treated like their neighbors. That's not a reason to deny others that treatment though.

> I have yet to meet a legal immigrant that isn't okay with booting anyone that isn't legal out.

Yeah they tend to skew pretty reactionary. That tends to sort itself out after a generation or two.

> A country without border control is NOT a country.

I didn't say we shouldn't have border security. In what universe is a goon squad going door to door checking for undesirables "border control"?

The term you're looking for is discoverability, and in my experience it's the most discussed concept when it comes to critiques of text based user interfaces.

Thinking about it - for traditional text based interfaces like a unix shell, perhaps I'd argue that with stackoverflow and google search they became more discoverable than GUI's.

And perhaps even more with LLMs.

ie it's easier to find out how to do X in bash and cut and paste the solution than watch a video on which series of things to click.

Not sure how that extends to specific chat interfaces - can you ask the general models how best to use specific chat from ends over specific tools?

At this rate, given a few more years Google will announce that they're moving to a "once a century" release model for AOSP.

They'll decrease the frequency by a year every year so they never actually release it again

Would it be so bad? The recent Androids have been going downhill. E.g. the mandatory edge-to-edge nonsense.

Got to say, I like the current Android versions. In the early days I flashed my Motorola Defy every second month with some cool new ROM. Always rooted and Xposed, always enabling something new.

Now I run a S23 Ultra and after two years it still does everything I need. OneUI 8.0 and Android 16. For work (app de) I also have a Pixel 7a, always with the newest Android Beta. Also works well.

Even the entry level phones work OK to pretty good now. My Samsung A16 5G (also for work) functions surprisingly well for 150€.

> Now I run a S23 Ultra and after two years it still does everything I need.

Maybe, but it is fully under Google and Samsung's control, and is choke full of spyware. You couldn't pay me to use a stock (Googled) Android phone for this reason alone.

Back when I used Android phones, tweaking was pretty important to me too. I still remember when I installed CyanogenMod on a Motorola XT1565, those were the days... Eventually, LineageOS, and then some new phones happened, not all of which were rootable, though I eventually ended up with a OnePlus 7 Pro which was pretty tweakable and even opened the possibility of bootloader re-locking, until a TWRP bug wiped my device and I pretty much stopped tweaking. Was never quite able to get EdXposed working right again...

How well is rooting supported on these newer Android versions/devices? If I install LineageOS on my device, for example, I can be reasonably sure that Magisk will work fine. But how well does it work on a stock, locked-down ROM?

Most devices doesn't have unlockable bootloaders now thus you can't even root them unless it was a popular device and a temporary /finicky hack was found.

I think this is meant to show that moving the responsibility this way would be absurd because we don't do it for cars but... yeah, we probably should've done that for cars? Maybe then we'd have safe roads that don't encourage reckless driving.

But I think you're missing their "like bank robberies" point. Punishing the avenue of transport for illegal activity that's unrelated to the transport itself is problematic. I.e. people that are driving safely, but using the roads to carry out bad non-driving-related activities.

It's a stretched metaphor at this point, but I hope that makes sense (:

It is definitely getting stretchy at this point, but there is the point to be made that a lot of roads are built in a way which not only enables but encourages driving much faster than may be desired in the area where they're located. This, among other things, makes these roads more interesting as getaway routes for bank robbers.

If these roads had been designed differently, to naturally enforce the desired speeds, it would be a safer road in general and as a side effect be a less desirable getaway route.

Again I agree we're really stretching here, but there is a real common problem where badly designed roads don't just enable but encourage illegal and potentially unsafe driving. Wide, straight, flat roads are fast roads, no matter what the posted speed limit is. If you want low traffic speeds you need roads to be designed to be hostile to high speeds.

I think you are imagining a high-speed chase, and I agree with you in that case.

But what I was trying to describe is a "mild mannered" getaway driver. Not fleeing from cops, not speeding. Just calmly driving to and from crimes. Should we punish the road makers for enabling such nefarious activity?

(it's a rhetorical question; I'm just trying to clarify the point)

We wouldn't have roads at all is my point, because no contractor in their right mind would take on unbounded risk for limited gain.

Which in case of digital replicas that can feign real people, may be worth considering. Not a blanket legislation as proposed here, but something that signals the downstream risks to the developer to prevent undesired uses.

Then only foreign developers will be able to work with these kinds of technologies... the tools will still be made, they'll just be made by those outside jurisdiction.

Unless they released a model named "Tom Cruise-inator 3000," I don't see any way to legislate that intent that would provide any assurances to a developer that their misused model couldn't result in them facing significant legal peril. So anything in this ballpark has a huge chilling effect in my view. I think it's far too early in the AI game to even be putting pen to paper on new laws (the first AI bubble hasn't even popped, after all) but I understand that view is not universal.

I would say a text-based model carries a different risk profile compared to video-based ones. At some point (now?) we'd probably need to have the difficult conversation of what level of media-impersonation we are comfortable with.

It's messy because media impersonation has been a problem since the advent of communication. In the extreme, we're sort of asking "should we make lying illegal?"

The model (pardon) in my mind is like this:

* The forger of the banknote is punished, not the maker of the quill

* The author of the libelous pamphlet is punished, not the maker of the press

* The creep pasting heads onto scandalous bodies is punished, not the author of Photoshop

In this world view, how do we handle users of the magic bag of math? We've scarcely thought before that a tool should police its own use. Maybe, we can say, because it's too easy to do bad things with, it's crossed some nebulous line. But it's hard to argue for that on principle, as it doesn't sit consistently with the more tangible and well-trodden examples.

With respect to the above, all the harms are clearly articulated in the law as specific crimes (forgery, libel, defamation). The square I can't circle with proposals like the one under discussion is that they open the door for authors of tools to be responsible for whatever arbitrary and undiscovered harms await from some unknown future use of their work. That seems like a regressive way of crafting law.

> The creep pasting heads onto scandalous bodies is punished, not the author of Photoshop

In this case the guy making the images isn't doing anything wrong either.

Why would we punish him for pasting heads onto images, but not punish the artist who supplied the mannequin of Taylor Swift for the music video to Famous?†

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7FCgw_GlWc

Why would we punish someone for drawing us a picture of Jerry Falwell having sex with his mother when it's fine to describe him doing it?

(Note that this video, like the recent SNL "Home Alone" sketch, has been censored by YouTube and cannot be viewed anonymously. Do we know why YouTube has recently kicked censorship up to these levels?)

Selling anything takes on unbounded risk for limited gain. That’s why the limited liability company exists.

Risk becomes bound to the total value of the company and you can start acting rationally.

And I am talking about user-facing app development specifically, which has a different risk profile compared to automative or civil engineering.

Creative work has obvious applications. e.g. AISIS - The Lost Tapes[0] was a sort of Oasis AI tribute album (the songs are all human written and performed, and then the band used a model of Liam Gallagher's mid 90s voice. Liam approved of the album after hearing it, saying he sounded "mega"). Some people have really unique voices and energy, and even the same artist might lose it over time (e.g. 90s vs 00s Oasis), so you could imagine voice cloning becoming just a standard part of media production.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whB21dr2Hlc

So can image gen systems.

As a former VFX person, I know that a couple of shows are testing out how/where it can be used. (currently its still more expensive than trad VFX, unless you are using it to make base models.)

Productivity gains in the VFX industry over the last 20 years has been immense. (ie a mid budget TV show has more, and more complex VFX work than most movies that are 10 years old, and look better.)

But, does that mean we should allow any bad actor to flood the floor with fake clips of whatever agenda they want to push? no. If I as a VFX enthusiast gets fooled by GenAI videos (Picture area done deal, its super hard to stop reliably) then we are super fucked.

You said you can't see a legitimate use, but clearly there are legitimate uses (the "no legitimate use" idea is used to justify bad drug policy for example, so we should be skeptical of it). As to whether we should allow it, I don't see how we have a choice. The models are already out there. Even if they weren't, it becomes cheaper every year to train new ones, and eventually today's training supercomputers will be tomorrow's commodity. The whole idea of AI "fingerprinting" is bad anyway; you don't fingerprint that something is inauthentic. You sign that it is authentic.

> The models are already out there. Even if they weren't, it becomes cheaper every year to train new ones,

Yes, lets just give up as bad actors undermine society, scam everyone and generally profit from us.

> You sign that it is authentic.

Signing means you denote ownership. A signed message means you can prove where it comes from. A service should own the shit it generates.

Which is the point, because if I cannot reliably see what is generated, how is a normal person able to tell. being able to provide a mechanism for the normal person to verify is a reasonable ask.

You put the bad actors in prison, or if they're outside your jurisdiction, and they're harming your citizens, and you're America, you go murder them. This has to be the solution anyway because the technology is already widely available. You can't make everyone in the world delete the models.

Yes signing so the way you show something is authentic. Like when the Hunter Biden email thing happened I didn't understand (well, I did) why the news was pretending we have no way to check whether they're real or whether the laptop was tampered with. It was a gmail account; they're signed by Google. Check the signatures! If that's his email address (presumably easy enough to corroborate), done. Missed opportunity to educate the public about the fact that there's all sorts of infrastructure to prove you made/sent something on a computer.

> You put the bad actors in prison,

how do you detect it?

People who get scammed make police reports, same as without voice models.

Well it would also apply to bike lanes.

If you want to spread this idea, it would probably help your cause if you pointed to what you think Rust does particularly poorly. Steep learning curve, npm-esque packaging?

The article gave many good reasons where Rust is lacking. The points you raise are also clearly issues. My main additional issues are the high complexity, the syntax, the lack of stability, compilation times (and monomorphization), and lack of alternate implementations. Ignoring the language itself, the aggressive and partially misleading negative and positive marketing.

Lack of (useful) dynamic linking is a huge problem IMO.

What do you mean by useful dynamic linking? Dynamic linking with C ABI is supported natively in Rust and is very widely used (just checked GitHub), especially for FFI like in Python modules (PyO3). If you mean an ABI that supports all the Rust features (without extern C), then it's a problem faced by every language that has more features than C - C++, Haskell, Go, Zig, etc included. To solve that problem, somebody will have to design a new stable standard common ABI that natively supports all the features from these languages, or at least makes it possible to express these features in some way.

C++ has reasonable dynamic linking (there are ABI breaks, but I only remember only one really bad one with std::basic_string and C++11), obviously excluding a lot of metaprogramming features, but a lot of C++ dynamic libraries exist that are widely used. Supposedly Swift does a better job, though I'm not familiar. Yes, Rust can dynamically link with a C ABI (as can any language) but it loses a lot of the expressiveness (I imagine, I'm not a rust developer) to have to use the C ABI.

Dynamic languages of course support dynamic linking.

> there are ABI breaks, but I only remember only one really bad one with std::basic_string and C++11

ABI breaks are everywhere in C++... consider a class

  class foo {
  public:
    foo();
    void do_something();
  private:
    int x;
  }

and an impl in the dynamic library:

  #include "foo.h"
  foo::foo() {
    this->x = 0;
  }
  void foo::do_something() { std::cout << this->x << std::endl; }

You build a libfoo.so and clients use it, calling `foo f; f.do_something();`, it calls your library and it's great.

But as soon as you ship a new version that adds a new field to foo (still source-code compatible):

  class foo {
  public:
    foo();
    void do_something();
  private:
    int x;
    int y;
  };

With a new function body in your shared object:

  void foo::do_something() { std::cout << this->x << this->y << std::endl; }

You're hosed. Clients have to recompile, or they get:

  $ ./main
  0, 0
  *** stack smashing detected ***: terminated
  [1]    2625391 IOT instruction (core dumped)  ./main

Because the size information for an instance of foo is only known at compile-time, so the clients aren't allocating enough space on the stack for it (ditto the heap if you're using `new foo();`)

The way around this is awkward and involves the pimpl pattern and moving all your constructors out-of-line... but you also need to freeze all virtual methods (even just adding a new one breaks ABI), and avoid using any template-heavy std:: types (not even std::string), since those are often fragile.

Most people just give up and offer an extern "C" API, because that has the added benefit that it's compatible across compilers.

"true" C++ shared libraries are crazy difficult to maintain. It's the reason microsoft invented COM.

Swift goes through crazy lengths to make this work, and it's impressive: https://faultlore.com/blah/swift-abi/#resilient-type-layout

Rust would have to do something like Swift is doing, and that's probably never going to happen.

Sure, you can break ABI in a library, but the compiler doesn't force you to, is what I mean. Same as breaking ABI in C when you change a struct...

It is problem of all languages whose extensions to C are badly designed. That it works with the C FFI just shows that C part properly supports it while Rust does not. And yes, C++ has similar problems as Rust.

Both Pin Projection and the handling of async are pretty bad in my opinion and I write a lot of Rust code. The syntax is also slowly getting very funky with horrible additions like the recent `+ use <'a>` snytax. I also agree with the orphan rule but it makes a lot of code very ugly, fast.

> Everyone goes to the "simplest" target - Google in this case - to blame for the status quo, but Google is in this position because everybody else

Eh, I think we ought to dole out our ire in accordance with the damage. All are responsible to varying degrees, but Google is the most powerful, and has the greatest ability to curb bad behavior if they wanted to, so they get and deserve the most blame second only to the governments that let them become that powerful.

Dole out the ire, but it won't fix the problem until you realize that everyone's dismissal of ownership and responsibility in exchange for convenience is what creates the googles and apples of the world.

Google will argue they are enforcing good behaviour: if you want to rely on their technical guarantees you follow their rules/specs.

> Dole out the ire, but it won't fix the problem until you realize that everyone's dismissal of ownership and responsibility in exchange for convenience is what creates the googles and apples of the world

This is the opposite of true. Blaming normal human behavior for our problems is distraction from effective action. Humans are a near-constant, you have to look to incentive structures to make any changes to the world.

Surely they do sometimes?

A 26-sided die reproduces chuncks of source code. What's the dividing line?

This is a multi-terabyte sized dice that is not at all random AND has most definitely copied the source code in question to begin with.

The number of sides has nothing to do with the data within. It's not random and sometimes it repeats things in an obviously non-chance way.

Of course, it's random and by chance - tokens are literally sampled from a predicted probability distribution. If you mean chance=uniform probability you have to articulate that.

It's trivially true that arbitrarily short reconstructions can be reproduced by virtually any random process and reconstruction length scales with the similarity in output distribution to that of the target. This really shouldn't be controversial.

My point is that matching sequence length and distributional similarity are both quantifiable. Where do you draw the line?

> Of course, it's random and by chance - tokens are literally sampled from a predicted probability distribution.

Picking randomly out of a non-random distribution doesn't give you a random result.

And you don't have to use randomness to pick tokens.

> If you mean chance=uniform probability you have to articulate that.

Don't be a pain. This isn't about uniform distribution versus other generic distribution. This is about the very elaborate calculations that exist on a per-token basis specifically to make the next token plausible and exclude the vast majority of tokens.

> My point is that matching sequence length and distributional similarity are both quantifiable. Where do you draw the line?

Any reasonable line has examples that cross it from many models. Very long segments that can be reproduced. Because many models were trained in a way that overfits certain pieces of code and basically causes them to be memorized.

> Very long segments that can be reproduced

Right, and very short segments can also be reproduced. Let's say that "//" is an arbitrarily short segment that matches some source code. This is trivially true. I could write "//" on a coin and half the time it's going to land "//". Let's agree that's a lower bound.

I don't even disagree that there is an upper bound. Surely reproducing a repo in its entirety is a match.

So there must exist a line between the two that divides too short and too long.

Again, by what basis do you draw a line between a 1 token reproduction and a 1,000 token reproduction? 5, 10, 20, 50? How is it justified? Purely "reasonableness"?

Why do you want me to pick a number so bad?

There are very very long examples that are clearly memorization.

Like, if a model was trained on all the code in the world except that specific example, the chance of it producing that snippet is less than a billionth of a billionth of a percent. But that snippet got fed in so many times it gets treated like a standard idiom and memorized in full.

Is that a clear enough threshold for you?

I don't know where the exact line is, but I know it's somewhere inside this big ballpark, and there are examples that go past the entire ballpark.

I don't care where specifically the bound is.

IIRC at a point it was 6 line of code