The right of free speech is not wholly encompassed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
In fact, it's the other way around, it's because the right of free speech is recognized as a universal, natural right then the US Federal Government is not permitted to make a law suppressing speech. The First Amendment does not create the right. The right is there, naturally, whether or not the United States or its constitution or government exists. The First Amendment merely explicitly states that the government isn't permitted to impede that right.
Using the existence of the First Amendment to narrow free speech as a right to what the government is permitted to do and nothing else is a severe perversion of both the document and the beliefs of the framers.
In short, "it's a private entity doing it" is an incredibly poor defense of behavior that suppresses speech. It's like how young children will defend their rude or offensive behavior with "it's not illegal." The reason that's an unconvincing argument is that it's an incredibly low bar. The world is full of behaviors that may not be so universally offensive or outrageous that people have explicitly written down that nobody is every allowed to do that thing. It's actually a very small range of possible behaviors that that covers.
The only reason that there isn't a general law barring private parties from restricting the speech of others is (a) one's right to free speech does not necessarily negate another's rights in the same or a different area, (b) one's rights do not entitle one to the use of things owned by others against their desires, and (c) any such law could be used by the government to indirectly suppress other rights.
The narrow nature of the First Amendment is not to be taken as an implication that the right is narrow. It's an admission that the law cannot perfectly protect human rights.
> The right of free speech is not wholly encompassed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
And there are other human rights besides the right to free speech, which have to be balanced. One of them is the right to safe travel. That means people who are responsible for the safety of a planeload of people have to err very strongly on the side of being safe rather than sorry. And mature adults are suppposed to recognize that fact and not insist on exercising their free speech right everywhere they go, to the detriment of other rights.
The first amendment is indeed concerned only with the US government’s interaction with the matter, as is appropriate, but that does not imply it’s without other limitation. Your list is very broad and covers a wide range of common sense limitations—like, say, that you don’t want somebody in your vehicle harassing you.
Anyway, airlines are hard because the basic problem is they’re public necessity still halfway regarded as private business. It’s also an unnatural situation that many people be forced to share such little space in “public”, and we’d likely have a different constitution were it always the case.
I don’t think this one will be addressed by principle from on high.
That's nice and all, but you're not in the United States when you're on a plane in the air over the ocean. In this particular case, because United Airlines is a US airline, US law will mostly apply, but I'm sure you get the point.
DBeaver requires Java, supports more RDBMSs, supports plug-ins, supports ER diagrams, but is also a project split into a community/enterprise model so some features are just never going to be implemented or improved upon without you paying an annual fee.
HeidiSQL is written in Delphi, supports the major RDBMSs (except Oracle), and is more focused on being a query analyzer than anything else. There is no edition split or paid model, so you're more likely to see new features in the free edition.
IMX, HeidiSQL is faster. It loads quickly and performs better, though I will say that my experience with both is about 10 years old at this point. From my memory, the DBeaver interface has always felt clunky in that way unique to Java applications, and many of the features in DBeaver are things I never wanted or needed. At the time, HeidiSQL was Windows-exclusive, with Linux support only about a year or two old at this point. My opinion 10 years back was that I would use HeidiSQL when I could and DBeaver if I had to.
Vibe coding a low-stakes personal project is very different from vibe coding a hospital information system or a kernel patch. Learning you can get away with one doesn't mean you should translate that to the other.
It is like tbe pottery parable. Try 100 times on a low stakes project for tacit experience. Get better at it. Then use in prod. In prod - obviously you will have more guardrails and you would probably review all code.
I don't know why US senators are up in arms about this. Trump was extremely clear when he gave them his budget that he wanted CISA's budget drastically cut. He also specifically directed CISA to shut down their election security office.
This is the "who killed Hannibal" meme. If Padilla and Warner didn't know about this, then they're incompetent themselves. Especially because they reported on it last year:
It takes brains to run propaganda that successfully changes minds.
Propaganda that just confirms preexisting mass delusions is actually pretty easy to run if you have a lot of support from similar actors running adjacent campaigns.
First, you might not reload everything in memory, so it will be patched on disk but not in process.
Second, you have not tested that the system can boot to a functional system. Say you have done live patching for 5 years and never rebooted, and then you have a power loss or hardware failure/upgrade that takes the system down. When you try to bring it back up, it doesn't work. Which configuration change in the past 5 years caused that? Which backup do you use?
And, yeah, everything is hot swappable on VAX. Those machines also cost 6+ figures, and often require a service contract that includes a permanent on site tech.
Only the last generation or 2 of the highest end VAXen had any significant hot swap (VAX 9000/400 and later, which sold very poorly). The vast majority of VAX machines didn't. Even hot-swapping DSSI disks was at best iffy.
When someone whose been there talks about VAX 'high availability', they're usually talking about VAX/VMS clustering. Very cool and generally effective approach to the problem. That was one big issue with the end-game VAXen: clustering a couple of 6-figure mid-range machine was often considered a better solution than all-in on one 7- to 8-figure VAX 'mainframe'.
often require a service contract that includes a permanent on site tech.
I don't recall that being common with DEC service contracts. Most of the sites I know of that had dedicated DEC techs were either very large installs or had...other...drivers (e.g. tech had to have a TS clearance to work on the machines).
Executing hardware hot-swap typically means telling the system that a component is going down. Then the system moves those resources to the other component to gracefully allow you to remove it without a restart.
Like it's not a case where you just yank out a CPU as you like as though it were a spindle in a RAID-6 array. Especially if there's only one CPU. The state machine can't maintain state if the only component that tracks and maintains state goes missing.
Had an accidental reboot, and it could not boot. Had redundancy, but the other server had failed silently days prior. Solved it with three way redundancy and extra monitoring. Systems fail in many ways at the same time. If you do not test it, there is a chance it wont work. Controlled failure is preferred over unknowns, like rebooting once in a while just to make sure it works.
Ah, spoken with the confidence of a freshly minted qualified worker :). Anything you don’t test is a wish, not a production system. You either know that your systems work end to end because you tested periodically, or you pray they will.
How do you know the automatic failover works? How do you know the standby system works?
I’ve seen many a “qualified workers” getting sent packing because they never fully tested the prod system because they just knew everything will work, and never tested the backup systems because qualified workers do the job right the first time, no need for backup.
Not sure I'm following honestly. Your primary goes down and it fails over to the secondary (which becomes the primary), but if you can't boot how do you then get another secondary ready to fail over to again when the new primary inevitably fails?
You patch it in memory and on disk. What you put on disk is the patch though, so when you restart, the original unpatched version is booted, and then the same live patch is applied. This is how Ksplice worked. It has the advantage that there isn't a config file in /etc to get changed out from under it, so the second problem did not apply.
Ksplice can do that because the kernel is only in memory in one place an it never sleeps. It has to orchestrate a process that's always running, which is complex, but it's never more than one.
Now try patching glibc like that. Not only does almost every thread have it in memory, several of them will have it in process, and some of them will have it swapped to disk while the thread sleeps. You're going to quickly decide that you actually just want a little bit of downtime or else you want to stand up a redundant system. There's a reason that some live patching systems explicitly exclude glibc and similar libraries.
That will be fun because it's illegal to accept money to promote a product without indication that you have done so. The FTC requires "clear and conspicuous disclosure" for such endorsements.
Legally I don't think a pardon makes the act not a crime, it just makes it unpunished. I could be wrong there though, that gets deep into legal pedantry.
Seems to work fine for product placement in other media. Apparently "clear and conspicuous disclosure" can be a footnote hidden somewhere in the credits.
It could also be a pop-up or a clear icon in a corner without disrupting the movie. It does not have to be baked into the video stream as long as it's displayed. I'm not sure what country you're in but some programs on TV or YouTube use this system and it's fine. No need to pause with flashing lights.
The chat interface has the disclaimer "AI responses may include mistakes." and that appears to be enough to relieve them of any responsibility for the responses. In a similar manner, wouldn't it be enough to add a disclaimer that says "AI responses may include sponsored content."?
How many of the things you've listed here are $20/month better than a search engine? That's the actual deal here.
Obviously, a better search engine that also doesn't display ads is better. But is it $20/month better? When it's also got daily usage limits? And they're almost certain to start injecting ads as soon as they possibly can without alienating people?
I’m already paying for it, this is just one of the many ways I’m using it.
Your phone and internet connections also have usage limits, and you’re also using them in various ways.
I agree that it’s extremely likely that, especially post-IPO, monetization will kill the current user experience, which I already hinted at in my previous comment.
I’m not entirely convinced that they will be able to monetize that effectively with ads. Right now I can buy more chat than I can use in a month for $10 in API credits via commodity open model providers.
Given the growing distrust of ad supported tech, I could see AI remaining as a paid product.
In fact, it's the other way around, it's because the right of free speech is recognized as a universal, natural right then the US Federal Government is not permitted to make a law suppressing speech. The First Amendment does not create the right. The right is there, naturally, whether or not the United States or its constitution or government exists. The First Amendment merely explicitly states that the government isn't permitted to impede that right.
Using the existence of the First Amendment to narrow free speech as a right to what the government is permitted to do and nothing else is a severe perversion of both the document and the beliefs of the framers.
In short, "it's a private entity doing it" is an incredibly poor defense of behavior that suppresses speech. It's like how young children will defend their rude or offensive behavior with "it's not illegal." The reason that's an unconvincing argument is that it's an incredibly low bar. The world is full of behaviors that may not be so universally offensive or outrageous that people have explicitly written down that nobody is every allowed to do that thing. It's actually a very small range of possible behaviors that that covers.
The only reason that there isn't a general law barring private parties from restricting the speech of others is (a) one's right to free speech does not necessarily negate another's rights in the same or a different area, (b) one's rights do not entitle one to the use of things owned by others against their desires, and (c) any such law could be used by the government to indirectly suppress other rights.
The narrow nature of the First Amendment is not to be taken as an implication that the right is narrow. It's an admission that the law cannot perfectly protect human rights.
reply