When I type in 'DELETE', the button just stays disabled for me. When I tried to make the request through their 'Privacy' portal, I receive a mysterious 'Session expired' error message, and now I've been locked out with the message 'Too many failed attempts'...
The lament I think is more that this is a kind of "dark pattern" that's not really regulated. IMO it should be as easy to delete an account as it is to sign up. To my mind, this is very similar to subscribing/unsubscribing which IIRC is regulated now.
The overall point I'm making is that it is "gross" when companies do stuff like this and yet there's zero accountability. Or when it comes to reliability of account deletion tech companies put up their hands and say "whoops technology is hard."
All right, but perhaps they should also list the grand promises they made and failed to deliver on. They said they would have fully self-driving cars by 2016. They said they would land on Mars in 2018, yet almost a decade has passed since then. They said they would have Tesla's fully self-driving robo-taxis by 2020 and human-to-human telepathy via Neuralink brain implants by 2025–2027.
> - <Denial despite the insane rate of progress>
Sure, but not by what was actually promised. There may also be fundamental limitations to what the current architecture of LLMs can achieve. The vast majority of LLMs are still based on Transformers, which were introduced almost a decade ago. If you look at the history of AI, it wouldn't be the first time that a roadblock stalled progress for decades.
> But I bet it would catch up real fast to GCC with a fraction of the resources if it was guided by a few compiler engineers in the loop.
Okay, so at that point, we would have proved that AI can replicate an existing software project using hundreds of thousands of dollars of computing power and probably millions of dollars in human labour costs from highly skilled domain experts.
This suggests that the Chinese government recognises that its legitimacy is conditional and potentially unstable. Consequently, the state treats uncontrolled public discourse as a direct threat. By contrast, countries such as the United States can tolerate the public exposure of war crimes, illegal actions or state violence, since such revelations rarely result in any significant consequences. While public outrage may influence narratives or elections to some extent, it does not fundamentally endanger the continuity of power.
I am not sure if one approach is necessarily worse than the other.
It's weird to see this naivete about the US system, as if US social media doesn't have its ways of dealing with wrongthink, or the once again naive assumption that the average Chinese methods of dealing with unpleasant stuff is that dissimilar from how the US deals with it.
I sometimes have the image that Americans think that if the all Chinese got to read Western produced pamphlet detailing the particulars of what happened in Tiananmen square, they would march en-masse on the CCP HQ, and by the next week they'd turn into a Western style democracy.
How you deal with unpleasant info is well established - you just remove it - then if they put it back, you point out the image has violent content and that is against the ToS, then if they put it back, you ban the account for moderation strikes, then if they evade that it gets mass-reported. You can't have upsetting content...
You can also analyze the stuff, you see they want you to believe a certain thing, but did you know (something unrelated), or they question your personal integrity or the validity of your claims.
All the while no politically motivated censorship is taking place, they're just keeping clean the platform of violent content, and some users are organically disagreeing with your point of view, or find what you post upsetting, and the company is focused on the best user experience possible, so they remove the upsetting content.
And if you do find some content that you do agree with, think it's truthful, but know it gets you into trouble - will you engage with it? After all, it goes on your permanent record, and something might happen some day, because of it. You have a good, prosperous life going, is it worth risking it?
> I sometimes have the image that Americans think that if the all Chinese got to read Western produced pamphlet detailing the particulars of what happened in Tiananmen square, they would march en-masse on the CCP HQ, and by the next week they'd turn into a Western style democracy.
I'm sure some (probably a lot of) people think that, but I hope it never happens. I'm not keen on 'Western democracy' either - that's why, in my second response, I said that I see elections in the US and basically all other countries as just a change of administrators rather than systemic change. All those countries still put up strong guidelines on who can be politically active in their system which automatically eliminates any disruptive parties anyway. / It's like choosing what flavour of ice cream you want when you're hungry. You can choose vanilla, chocolate or pistachio, but you can never just get a curry, even if you're craving something salty.
> It's weird to see this naivete about the US system, as if US social media doesn't have its ways of dealing with wrongthink, or the once again naive assumption that the average Chinese methods of dealing with unpleasant stuff is that dissimilar from how the US deals with it.
I do think they are different to the extent that I described. Western countries typically give you the illusion of choice, whereas China, Russia and some other countries simply don't give you any choice and manage narratives differently. I believe both approaches are detrimental to the majority of people in either bloc.
> I sometimes have the image that Americans think that if the all Chinese got to read Western produced pamphlet detailing the particulars of what happened in Tiananmen square, they would march en-masse on the CCP HQ, and by the next week they'd turn into a Western style democracy.
We know what happened at Tiananmen. most educated young people in China all know. We just cannot talk about it publicly. We even know that the man standing in front of the tank did not die, they didn't kill him(you can find the full footage on the internet, it's just most posts only show a clip). Of course I would not deny that others died; I just don’t know the specific details.
But we do not reject the Communist Party because of this. We simply like Mao more, and comparatively dislike some other leaders.
It can still influence what those people do, and the rules you have up live under. In particular, Covid restrictions in China were brought down because everyone was fed up with them. They didn't have to have an election to collectively decide on that, despite the government saying you must still social distance et Al,
for safety reasons.
I disagree. Elections do not offer systemic change. They offer a rotation of administrators. While rhetoric varies, the institutions, strategic priorities, and coercive capacities persist, and every viable candidate ends up defending them.
> I am a huge fan of SpaceX and I think that establishing a multi-planetary civilization is the most important thing to do, and, I’ll say bluntly, will save lives.
How can we credibly talk about saving lives on other planets when we are demonstrably unable to protect life on the only habitable world we actually have? If we are failing at basic stewardship here, what evidence is there that we would act more responsibly anywhere else?
Well, one easy argument would be they we don’t have multiple countries on the other planet.
It’s easier to provide for your own people as a BDFL over your own assets than navigate politics between 250 different countries with their own interests.
Whataboutism. What do you expect Cloudflare to do about the US imposing extraterritorial laws? How is that in any way relevant to their dilemma at hand?
"Whataboutism" is being overused to the point of meaninglessness. It describes deflecting criticism by raising an unrelated issue. I did not do that. I did not avoid a question or dodge the criticism. I just pointed out an irony.
The livestock industry is an ecological disaster of unimaginable proportions. 50% of all habitable land is used for agriculture. Of that land, 83% is used for livestock, despite the fact that it only provides 18% of the calories consumed worldwide.
> While governments pretend to do stuff for the environment, they seem to always ignore the extreme cost on the environment and pollution caused by cattle.
While governments and politicians generally like to portray themselves as being driven by morals, they are actually driven almost entirely by economic interests.
> So, to be honest, while I don't freak out and I'm all for freedom, [...]
Well, I would like the freedom to live on a planet with an intact ecosystem. I also think that animals would like the freedom to live a life free from unnecessary exploitation.
> [...] and diet is by far more impactful than the transport of choice.
Both are high-impact areas, but changing your diet is much easier than changing your choice of transport - in some countries. Transport emissions account for about 25% of all emissions, 60% of which are caused by individuals' use of cars.
And after all of this, we haven't even touched on what fishing is doing to our oceans.
I do think that this is at the heart of the problem. The issue is not an overall lack of wealth, but how it is distributed. This is not going to change, no matter how many data centres or factories are built in the US. Ultimately, all the wealth will still end up in the hands of a select few.
Not to mention that we are already exceeding a number of planetary boundaries, which endanger humans. The ever-growing demand for natural resources and energy, which is directly coupled to GDP growth, is not likely to end well.
After spending quite a long time on this thread writing my thoughts etc, I feel like this is the most correct explaination of the situation
Distribution of wealth is the biggest issue and In my opinion, the most tangible way to solve things but then again, this is the core of the issue
Either you need a really anti corrupt body which can do their work and fight against such issues
But with causes like lobbying etc., those get washed up
Or we can have new people (like Zohran etc.) who try not to take lobbying money and then America can have new people who genuinely want to help and not be corrupt
But I am not sure what would happen, perhaps more people follow the example of zohran perhaps not. People are keeping an keen eye of the progress and what can happen. But one of the things which we saw was that although zohran won, I just didn't expect so much competition in the first place when Cuomo got around 40% I think?
it's wild because zohran's message was so well put out and received and this is the state then, I doubt that the voters might replicate it or not
It really depends ultimately on the voters. The truest form of responsibility but its also the lack of options and the two party system which is really bad in America ultimately causing the problems to exist even further.
> Either you need a really anti corrupt body which can do their work and fight against such issues
If changing the system is off the table, then this is what any solution would inevitably look like. I do not think the problem is a flaw in the system though. Calling it a systemic issue is misleading, because the system is largely functioning as designed. The logical response, therefore, is to change the system itself.
That idea sounds frightening, largely because most political parties treat the system as untouchable, presenting it as if there are no viable alternatives (thus convincing people that there are none, making them feel helpless). This creates a dead end: people experience the full force of the system's pressures while being told that nothing fundamental can be changed.
In that vacuum, scapegoating becomes an easy outlet. When the system itself cannot be questioned, frustration is redirected towards marginalised groups, under the implicit belief that punishing or excluding them will somehow relieve the pressure on everyone else, and that's how we ended up at this point (imho).
A system centered on people's needs would judge success by outcomes like health, stability, and quality of life rather than by growth metrics. If a policy reduces stress, improves wellbeing, and lowers long-term costs, it should be pursued even if it shrinks parts of the economy or even the economy overall. The fact that we currently treat any reduction in economic activity as a failure, regardless of human benefit, reveals how misaligned our priorities are.
I hope Zohran succeeds in improving people's lives, but I'm not holding my breath. I've been burned too many times before...
> But one of the things which we saw was that although zohran won, I just didn't expect so much competition in the first place when Cuomo got around 40% I think?
I think this primarily relates to how people are socialised. In Germany, we call this an 'elbow society', i.e. a society where people aggressively push their own interests and compete ruthlessly, showing little regard for cooperation, solidarity or fairness. People feel so lost in the world that they are losing their humanity, only looking out for what maximises their own outcomes. I believe this can be changed, but it will require a large-scale cultural shift driven by society, education, the media, and so on - the same institutions that pushed us in the other direction in the first place.
I Agree with your comment but one of the idea that terrifies me is not that change is impossible but rather change requires the whole world to do something about it and I am not that optimistic about it simply because of what you call about "elbow society"
> I think this primarily relates to how people are socialised. In Germany, we call this an 'elbow society', i.e. a society where people aggressively push their own interests and compete ruthlessly, showing little regard for cooperation, solidarity or fairness. People feel so lost in the world that they are losing their humanity, only looking out for what maximises their own outcomes. I believe this can be changed, but it will require a large-scale cultural shift driven by society, education, the media, and so on - the same institutions that pushed us in the other direction in the first place.
I so so agree with this statement, this is probably what I thought as well but one of the most terrifying things about this is that its sort of like a chicken and egg problem because the media,education and so much more are so influenced by policies/directly by the govt and the elites that I would doubt that making such change or giving people the idea that "change is possible" is itself possible
But there have been instances in the past where we pulled out of things but I am not sure how we can do it right now.
A large-scale cultural shift.
> the same institutions that pushed us in the other direction in the first place
So the thing which worries is me that I don't see a reason why these institutions would change? Do you see something in this perhaps?
I think that the best way is probably via at a small scale level and then having that grow up. Adopting it ourselves and discussing about it like we are doing right now is the only thing possible that we can do
My issue with this is that the incentives just aren't there for something like this. Let's say I want to create a social company and I just want "enough" and afterwards I'd just do it for helping etc. and getting miniscule gains because I think that the goal of money and only money itself is very dim
Even if we do something like this, the incentives really change because companies wont invest, you wont get funding etc.
So in a way, I think that the best way is probably getting attention of like minded people and having them invest with such knowledge but we really haven't seen such platforms. I think Kickstarters are a good idea for small scale projects but even they feel like you still have to get yourself a promotion or attention itself to fund it and it just becomes really 10x harder imo
I feel like microgrants are genuinely the best way moving forward. If people can provide 1-10k$/perhaps 50k? for an idea with intentions of good once it scales. To me it feels like the best way and I found ways to look at microgrants and they exist but I dont see many of them in much action either.
We really need to change incentives where doing good is favoured more than doing bad, We can even start small because sometimes even small good incentives are all one needs for real change.
I wish there was more interest in microgrants, I must admit that I had thought about working in this space or similar and perhaps I will jump back to it someday but what are your thoughts on it? Do you know of some mechanisms where good incentives can be generated at a societal rate?
The distribution is a problem, but not for the reasons people think. At these amounts (billions) the money stops being human-scale and starts to become civilization scale. You can accomplish big things with 150 billion. Things like: installing a gigawatt of solar, building a 1000km HVDC line, etc.
The issue is that when that 150 billion is concentrated into one person's hands, it tends to be inefficiently allocated. This is the argument against central planning; it's inefficient, it does not actually go where it would maximally benefit society.
We have, with the amount of wealth inequality, essentially re-invented central planning. It's arguably worse today, because rather than giving central control to a worker's council which is nominally accountable to regular people, we've given it to Larry Ellison who is going to build yet another datacenter for AI, instead of spending it on energy or manufacturing capacity.
My home electricity bill has doubled since AI came out. That is my evidence that this concentration of wealth is egregiously misallocating capital. It is a civilization-scale self-own. Countries that allocate capital properly will wipe the floor and we are beginning to see that play out.
Yep. The structural incentives for the bosses don't change when their employees are assembling cars or treating patients or serving coffee or writing code. Power is tipped towards capital and against labor. The owners extract wealth, which tips the scales further. Labor organizing has been kneecapped in this country and it will only get worse (there is an ongoing case trying to get basically the entire NLRB declared unconstitutional).
> I would assume so. It's sort of a catch 22 because if they delete your data, they have no way of knowing about you when they buy another batch of data. To have some sort of no track list, they have to keep your data.
They could store a normalised, hashed version of your data and use it to filter any incoming datasets. But, of course, why would they?
That wouldn't really work because the hash key has to be both specific enough to be unique to you and also general enough to cover any incomplete data set that matches you.
It would work in many cases, though not all. You would not hash everything together. Instead, you hash normalized identifiers independently, such as email address, phone number, or physical address. An incoming dataset would only need to match one of these to be excluded.
Also often not unique to a person, although email addresses probably tend to have much longer lifespans as identifiers than phone numbers.
If the idea is to have a true opt-out system, it's really really difficult to implement given how these systems work.
If you look at the data provided by services like accurint, you'll frequently see the same SSNs used for decades by multiple different individuals, often with IDs from different states with the same name and DoB despite obviously being different people. With how the system works in the US, it can often be impossible for anyone to determine which physical person the SSN was actually originally assigned to.
Same obviously applies to other identifiers you suggested, but even the seemingly good ones are not very good at uniquely identifying people.
You could of course key on things like SSNs, but data brokers wouldn't be very happy about that because there are lots of SSNs tied to multiple different people.
The government will, given that they're a fairly integral part of how the US economy.
Every single financial institution relies on these data-brokers. U-haul needs data brokers to be able to verify your driver's license, the TSA needs data brokers to let you on a flight without an ID. There are simply countless of reasons for why you wouldn't want to break this system for people who haven't opted in for breakage.
This does not matter much, since most people do not travel across states, countries, continents, etc on a daily basis. Most people probably travel within a 50 km (30 mile) radius (travelling to and from work, daycare, school, shopping, etc.).
iirc, the average is slightly higher in the US, but this is probably more due to how the US has approached urban planning over the last century or so than to the size of the country.
> But the answer is obviously (trigger warning for the libertarians...) taxes.
I think many people forget the huge societal cost of owning and running cars, including infrastructure maintenance, crash-related deaths and injuries, health conditions caused by crashes, air and noise pollution, climate change, resource extraction, and time lost in traffic. In other words, the savings from reducing these social, health, and environmental costs could easily finance the ticket. A study estimated that a modal shift of 10% to public transit could save Germany about 19 billion Euros a year (https://foes.de/publikationen/2024/2024-04_FOES_OEPNV.pdf).
> No. The additional usage you get during off-peak hours doesn’t count toward any weekly usage limits on your plan.
reply