An alternate read is that the entrenched leaders want to slow down development of competitors.

If Dario or Sam A wants to slow down frontier model development because they believe there is an existential threat, they already have the power to do that single handedly.

If I discovered that I had accidentally invented a doomsday machine, I wouldn’t be furiously providing access to anyone with a credit card.

Sites are always going to do malicious shit. The browser should know that when I hit the back button I want to go to the place I clicked that brought me here. SPAs have severely perverted this simple idea, but I’m sure browser devs can figure it out.

I was living in the eastern Caribbean ten years ago (a place that is not particularly poor), and the number of web services that could not handle a slow or unreliable connection was kind of shocking. Netflix was actually pretty impressive, they were fine to about 500kb/s with a lot of dropped packets. Below that, they were slow, but by no means unreliable. Most other sites would shit the bed on a similar connection.

Starlink has been an absolute godsend for my friends that are still down there.

Whether intent is required is down to how the law is written. For many offenses “strict liability” applies, where intent is not required, they only have to prove you did it, not what your intent was.

DUI is typically a strict liability crime. They don’t need to prove that you intended to drive drunk, only that you did drive drunk.

The strict liability means once you choose to become intoxicated, you're liable for driving intoxicated, even if in some other context your intoxication would mean you couldn't form the requisite intent for something, e.g. have sex.

If there's too much distance between the act you intend to do and the strict liability acts that complete the crime, then the crime would be considered unconstitutional.

Criminal law in common law systems emerged from tort law, so there are many parallels, including the notion of strict liability. (Thus the old axiom about crimes being an offense to the king, specifically an injury to the peaceful society he's ostensibly trying to maintain.) But criminal law has a moral dimension that is absent or muted in other areas, so strict liability could never be as expansive as in tort law or regulatory law.

1) Traffic-related laws straddle the boundary between civil/regulatory law and criminal law. Someone losing their driver's license or even paying a penalty for involuntary intoxication would still be consonant with criminal law principles. However, a criminal punishment would be aberrational. (Distinction between a civil penalty and criminal punishment usually turns on whether there's a moral purpose to the sanction. Jail time is usually but not always--cf civil contempt incarceration--considered a criminal punishment.)

2) Background principles notwithstanding, in theory a state could completely dispense with any morality-colored mens rea requirement, just as the UK Parliament could do whatever it wants to. The backstop would be Federal constitutional [substantive] due process guarantees.

2.a) Some quick searching shows that Texas nominally seems to have dispensed with this requirement for DWIs. See e.g. Farmer v. State, 411 S.W.3d 901 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) and some discussion at https://www.ncdd.com/top-dui-attorneys-blog/involuntary-into... Without having fully read the case law, though (but some summaries of that and other cases), I suspect there might be some nuance that has allowed this to stand without a full majority accepting that the traditional principles have been completely thrown out. For example, even if someone didn't know they were taking Ambien, the simple act of voluntarily taking any pill without careful examination can be construed as a sufficiently culpable act. Still, it's a pretty big caveat.

2.b) Statutory rape is a classic strict liability crime. But most states will permit a mistake-of-fact defense. Some don't, but even there there's sometimes some nuance and rationalizing going on and the literature is crazy complex. Because this is a "think of the children" situation, most case will just have horrible facts.

3) A few states have nominally dispensed with insanity defenses, though Kansas stands out the most. SCOTUS upheld Kansas' law in Kahler v. Kansas, but in the majority opinion Kagan characterized the Kansas law as not abolishing the insanity defense but rather changing its shape, and she showed that there still remained elements for which a defendant could plea lacked the requisite intent. Also, regarding the Federal constitution acting as backstop, she reiterated that SCOTUS was reticent to establish strict metes & bounds about the general principles of criminal law that states could not stray beyond. Nonetheless, those principles clearly exist.

I had some other points, but now I've forgotten them. Also, minor pedantic point, but like "strict liability crime", some scholars consider "affirmative defense" to be oxymoronic. As a substantive matter there's not a strong distinction. It's a procedural distinction about initial burdens of proof, but in most if not all cases you can interpret an affirmative defense as simply placing a very weak initial burden on the prosecution that is implicitly met.

(Note, I'm not a practicing lawyer but do have a law degree.)

EDIT: Ah, point 4) Intent was a big sticking point in the Obamacare penalty case, Sebelius. Both the dissent and Roberts (the swing vote) reiterated that you couldn't have a penalty or punishment for doing nothing. (IIRC some of the majority opinions also echoed this.) That is, even in a civil context there has some to be some voluntary act, however remote, that puts someone in a position to be subject to legal liability. But as Roberts pointed out, the taxing power is the great exception, where you can be required to do something merely for existing, and thus penalized for not doing nothing properly. (And Roberts was the critical swing vote.)

EDIT EDIT: Also see, "Solving General and Specific Intent: A Mapping on the MPC and Applications to the Categorical Approach", https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4754469 In describing the distinctions between general and specific intent in criminal law, it also delves into the definitions of strict criminal liability (which can be construed as either very similar or identical to general intent crimes), and notes that SCOTUS generally inserts an implicit mens rea requirement when considering strict liability criminal statutes.

This is wrong.

In criminal and civil law, strict liability is a standard of liability under which a person is legally responsible for the consequences flowing from an activity even in the absence of fault or criminal intent on the part of the defendant.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_liability

Fairly certain that the entire point of strict liability is that mens rea is not required for certain crimes. As in, if I meant to travel at 70 and was instead doing 100 it doesn’t matter that I sincerely meant not to speed and did not know I was speeding, I can still be convicted even if the judge believes I had no intent.

Negligence can be "unintentional" but still land you in the realm of having a guilty criminal mind.

I find it to be a reasonable take. If you're accidentally going 100 in a 70 (which is a misdemeanor in california), you're not being a careful enough driver, and we deem that lack of care criminal.

That’s just another way of saying “not all crimes require a guilty mind” with extra steps

That's different (sometimes) when, for example, you're found guilty of criminal negligence leading to someone being injured.

Prosecutors don't have to demonstrate that you intended for someone to get hurt for that, your mens rea is that you should have perceived the danger of what you were doing but didn't.

edit: reading your other comments in this thread, maybe I missed your point, in which case, whoosh.

IANAL but from what I've looked up in the last there's at least willfulness that matters for these things. For example if you could prove that happened because your car accelerator pedal broke and you had no opportunity to react, I'm pretty sure you would not be guilty, strict liability or not.

In New York there’s a concept of doing various things “in the furtherance of justice”. Judges have broad discretion to dismiss or reduce tickets.

Often it so happens that those reductions increase the city/towns share of the revenue.

In those cases, the judge may find that circumstances would make a traffic ticket unjust. But the standard of guilt is strict and clear cut.

LMAO “there’s no such thing as negligence” I type on my phone as my car plows through the doors of a Black Angus

Airlines in the US do not pressure pilots to avoid go arounds. Pilots in the US do not delegate life or death decisions to ops, especially since the FAA legally holds them accountable for that. All pilots are aware that they are responsible for the decision to go around or not.

Any airline found to be pressuring pilots to avoid go arounds would be in a world of pain with the FAA.

On cargo flights in particular timing and fuel usage are less critical than passenger flights, and a go around doesn't affect either much.

Pressure to avoid go arounds would also be incredibly counter productive since go arounds exist to preserve life and property. Pilots do go arounds to avoid costly incidents.

You are correct that the question is why they didn't do a go around, but I would bet a large sum of money that airline pressure to avoid go arounds was not a factor.

> The Amazon Prime Air Boeing 767 cargo plane that crashed off a Miami runway on Sunday, killing five people, was operated by a North Carolina company that has been accused by past employees of violating safety regulations, legal documents reveal.

There's a lot in the article, but this allegation is worth highlighting:

> Seuring's attorney, Michael Anello, told the judge that another 21 Air pilot, Johnny Salmonson, "was being pressured to fly in periods of time that were too short to comply with the proper amounts of rest, and that implicated safety. The layovers were too short."

Since the lavatory is not on the Minimum Equipment List, it would cost 30 minutes of paperwork to update the maintenance log and declare it inoperative.

Depends on how much of a psychopath the person doing the cost-benefit analysis is I suppose.

If any of those are true, it will be very bad for the carrier, but they are not related to any of the failures being reported on.

If pilots weren't being given enough rest time, as alleged, you don't believe that might affect decision-making in the cockpit?

There have been accidents around the world where pilots were trying to save fuel, get off work at a normal time instead of 2 hours extra holding, not wanting to divert and not be home, try to get on the ground so they don’t go over their max hours for the day, etc.

Yes it’s counterproductive. *It happens*. External or internal, it happens.

Sure there have been plenty of incidents. Can you point to one in the US, with pilots flying big planes, that hasn't led to regulatory change?

Its worth pointing out that pilots are almost always paid by flight hour. In other words, they get paid more to go around.

That one did lead to major regulatory changes. It wasn't in the US though but there was an American plane involved (which was not to blame)

Note: Both planes were American. One of the carriers was not. NTSB gets involved whenever it is a US carrier OR manufacturer, so they have a ton more data than just US carrier incidents.

Has timeliness based performance reviews ever been reported at any US carrier in the past half century?

Similar to farmers working in the fields - they didn't walk all the way back to the farmhouse if they had to pee.

That I've heard, with the insane pace of work that Amazon tries to force 'em to maintain, 3,600,000 milliseconds per hour, the job would be very little better if they somehow had 5-star resort bathrooms folded into hyperspace inside their trucks.

Take a look at Southwest's safety record. I believe they have 1 fatality due to an air incident in their history due to an uncontained engine failure that was not related to maintenance.

Also this was Amazon, not Southwest.

Construction companies in the US do not pressure employees to get shit done. Construction workers do not delegate the decisions to work in sketchy circumstances, especially since OSHA holds them accountable for all that.

See how silly that sounds?

They cook up the rules to be all compliant and whatnot and then everyone breaks them a little pretty often and in tasteful ways in order to actually get the job done. If you get caught or screw up, it's on you.

I assume this sort of pressure happens a lot less with pilots because of the cost of screw ups but there's still probably some implied pressure there.

Airlines are much more tightly bound by the FAA than any construction company is to any regulatory agency. Airlines have to get permission to let their pilots read documents off an iPad instead of paper, for example. It just isn't a good comparison to compare the most safety aware industry on earth to one famous for ignoring safety rules.

I've worked construction. I have a pilots license in multiple countries (including the US). They aren't the same.

I didn't say the same. I said the pressure was probably there too. But you can construe it as the former because that's a way easier thing to argue with.

I assume that since the NTSB database makes every single incident investigation public you can point to at least one instance where an ATP was pressured into avoiding a go around?

Commit to an action that ultimately caused a crash because they wanted to achieve ancillary goals (e.g. not be late)? Tons.

They call this "get-there-itis" (makes me feel so dirty trotting out buzzwords like that).

Can you point me to one of the specific incidents you are citing since both the new search and the old search seem to be broken for that specific term?

Edit: just to be clear: I’m not saying that companies don’t pressure transportation workers into bad decisions. My original supposition is that I have never heard of, nor would it make any sense, for a US airline to have a policy of avoiding go arounds. “Land rhe plane on the first try, or else…” is an exceptionally stupid policy.

In German railways there is a saying "Fracht motzt nicht, Fracht kotzt nicht" - freight neither complains nor vomits.

I would not be surprised at all to find this kind of attitude in air freight transportation too.

The iPhone 6 was a decade ago and was smaller in all dimensions than an iPhone 17 and had a perfectly acceptable battery life. Since then, they have removed headphone jacks and buttons, batteries have gotten more power dense, chips have gotten more efficient, etc.

All of the excuses people are coming up with in these comments are just that: excuses. Look at the sibling comment by musictubes, for example. Citing these ethereal "critics" and "most people" when in reality Walt Mossberg was the only critic whose opinion mattered.

Occam's Razor: The Innovator's Dilemma. It's a rotting, bloated megacorp with too much to lose, that doesn't take risks, and can't change direction. The direction it's in is "bigger phones", for whatever reason. So we're gonna keep getting bigger phones. It's that simple.

Smaller phones can’t fit as much stuff in them as larger phones. Shrink the phone and something has to give. People in the aggregate do not want to make those compromises unless the price is noticeably less. But then it can’t have any of the premium features that are expected from Apple. Small phones are compromises that don’t pay off for Apple.

The battery was the single largest module by a long shot in an iPhone 6, and now you can get the same capacity in a much smaller volume. We’ve also lost other bulky items like the home button and headphone jack.

The camera on the current gen has its own expanded volume area of the case, so I don’t buy that they couldn’t just use the same hump they use on literally all of their phones. Sure Face ID is new, but I’ve seen the size of that module, and it is only slightly larger than the selfie camera from back then that it replaced.

Really there should be an obstacle course of some kind based on the most common anomalies leading to accidents. Partially obscured road signs, worn paint markings, obscured sight lines caused by dense parking, driving on a snowed over surface, etc.

There's the beginnings of a standard for L2/L3 vehicles in Europe, and ongoing discussions about what L4 standards could look like, but neither addresses "adversarial" situations.

The trouble with "driver assistance" systems is the handoff to the driver. That's not reliable. Results from the aviation community indicate that it takes about ten seconds after an autopilot disconnect before the pilot has stable control of the aircraft. "L3.5" accepts that. The < 2 second response required by some L2 systems does not.

I passed because I didn’t kill anyone in the span of eight blocks.

You can just google the number.

What world do you live in where you need to make a non emergency call to the local police, but can’t just google “PLACE NAME police non emergency phone”?

Most people don’t know the police non emergency line for where they DO live, so you can safely just use the same procedure you use at home for phone number discovery when you are away from home. If you don’t have that dialed in, google can help you there too. It’s a fantastic place to learn all sorts of basic life skills.

It’s not an emergency, take your time and figure it out since timeliness is not extremely important. Google exists, phone books exist. You also don’t have to get it right on the first call, you can call the wrong people and they might know the right people to call. In fact, that happened to me when the water main broke on a Sunday near my house. I called the fire department non emergency line and they said to call the water department. I called the city water department, but they said I was in an area handled by the county. I called the county water department and they sent someone out. The first two calls cost me less than 5 minutes, and the people I spoke to at the wrong agencies were kind and helpful.

When I’m away from home, it really isn’t any different. I just change the name from “(town where I live) police non emergency line” to “(place I currently am) non emergency line” when I google things. Alternatively, turn on location services on your phone and you don’t have to put the place, google will figure it out for you.

If it’s not an emergency, there is no reason to call 911.