> Then the person who harmed him will be prosecuted ... NY Times isn’t calling for violence.
And the negligent driver also didn't mean to cause injury, yet we have laws on negligent driving.
If the NY Times would have known that harm could come to someone by having information published, they should consult and/or take measures to prevent that harm (or at least, take measures to minimize it).
The negligent driver was driving the vehicle though. The NY Times writer isn’t holding Back hostage and holding a knife to his throat nor indicating anyone should do that. Your metaphor is nonsense.
Consider the following hypothetical: you have a safe in your home with a substantial sum of money in it, and you consider its presence, the location and contents private knowledge. However, someone uses publicly available information to infer the rough location and contents of your safe and makes it public. You are robbed shortly after. What percentage of responsibility lies with that person?
Responsibility is entirely your own fault for letting the “someone” know of your safe and it’s value. Do you know in America most gun safes are kept unlocked? Most gun safes are rather large too, hard to hide. Why doesn’t chaos ensue when this fact is known? Someone COULD go an steal all the guns and use the guns to kill everyone then rob everyone. But do you think they’d get away clean and no one would have any idea what’s going on? It could happen but hasn’t yet.
It’s another day, why hasn’t some nut captured Back yet and done any of the fearful things you’re insinuating yet?
In fact why didn’t someone just kidnap and torture ALL of the possible Satoshis? The names have been known for quite some time. I’m sorry but your theory that revealing who Satoshi is, is bad doesn’t hold water.
Alternatively, you don't even have that money, the journalists hallucinated the whole thing, so when the home invader breaks in and starts torturing you, there's literally nothing you can do to save yourself as they cut off pieces of you little by little.
But don't worry, they'll definitely solve this crime, because the clearance rate for impersonal crimes that don't involve family, friends or business associates is famously high. ...oh wait.
What? They murdered me then stole my money. I’m dead before I knew I was robbed so in your scenario I can’t die knowing the thief would be prosecuted, because I’m already dead. I literally dont care what happens then because I have no agency at that point in time.
Harm from exposure can take a lot of shapes and sizes that go beyond the physical and the potential prosecution that someone may be held accountable I find weak.
What do you base that on? Some of the best names in academia are Chinese, and in the computer graphics world, SIGGRAPH Asia has largely eclipsed SIGGRAPH for academic presentations
A more accurate description of code is that it’s a depreciating asset, perhaps, or an asset that requires maintenance cost. Neither of which is a liability
They never golfed with me, double the swings and then triple the time I take to find my ball. I have the hardest time find things, not just in golf :)
So I guess I would get a decent workout by all the walking I do. FWIW, I have not played golf for over 30 years due to having a hard time finding the ball.
Given how many paid offerings Google has, and the complexity and nuance to some of those offering (e.g. AdSense) I am pretty surprised that Google don't have a functioning drop in solution for billing across the company.
If they do, it's failing here. The idea of a penny pinching megacorp like Google failing technically even in the penny pinching arena is a surprise to me.
Even though my post complaining about google's billing and incoherent mess got so many upvotes, I'll be the first to say that there is nothing basic about "give me money".
Apart from the fact that what happens to the money when it gets to google (putting it in the right accounts, in the right business, categorizing it, etc), it changes depending on who you're ASKING for money.
1. Getting money from an individual is easy. Here's a credit card page.
2. Getting money from a small business is slightly more complicated. You may already have an existing subscription (google workspaces), just attach to it.
3. As your customers get bigger, it gets more squishy. Then you have enterprise agreements, where it becomes a whole big mess. There are special prices, volume discounts, all that stuff. And then invoice billing.
The point is that yes, we all agree that getting someone to plop down a credit card is easy. Which is why Anthropic and OpenAI (who didn't have 20 years of enterprise billing bloat) were able to start with the simplest use case and work their way slowly up.
But I AM sensitive to how hard this is for companies as large and varied as Google or MS. Remember the famous Bill Gates email where even he couldn't figure out how to download something from Microsoft's website.
It's just that they are also LARGE companies, they have the resources to solve these problems, just don't seem to have the strong leadership to bop everyone on the head until they make the billing simple.
And my guess is also that consumers are such a small part of how they're making money (you best believe that these models are probably beautifully integrated into the cloud accounts so you can start paying them from day one).
The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money. Take boots, for example. ... A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. ... But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while a poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.
This was the Captain Samuel Vimes 'Boots' theory of socio-economic unfairness.
