I've had opencode go + opencode work reliably, though I'm skeptical of how robust their data security claims are in practice because they suddenly blocked accessing Deepseek unless you were okay with the data going to China where true data privacy for something like that is illegal, which makes me wonder where it went before, which weakens my trust. It's also a lot less useful now that Deepseek is so much more expensive.
If you can tolerate the (fairly minor) SEO consequences, just render on the client exclusively and fetch data via http calls. I've made small but quite interactive websites with entirely static Svelte + some router (routify/sveltekit/etc.) SPA that just uses http calls for whatever the server needs to be involved in. It's not the right choice for everything, but for some things it works excellently. With a relatively lightweight frontend like Svelte, as well as splitting the SPA into multiple bundles (so it's in some ways not an SPA anymore) makes it perfectly usably snappy even over 200+ms latency, and very fast over a normal connection.
This just means that there's pent up demand for litigation that is currently left unfulfilled because it's too expensive. Or, equivalently, many people think that they have been wronged and must simply take it, due to litigation being the only option to enforce that issue while litigation is too expensive to be affordable to them, or more expensive than the cost of the dispute (so, in effect, scamming people out of small dollar amounts is legal since the cost of enforcing one's legal rights may be in excess of the cost of the dispute).
Imagine what would happen if we made it cheaper, as happens very frequently when some other good or service becomes cheaper? Usually the provision/manufacture has some advancements that make it much more scalable, and often less involved, resulting in a lower cost, and sometimes but not always lower quality. So, for litigation? We'd get lower cost, via some more efficient¹ system², maybe lower quality depending on how we make that system more efficient and this may or may not matter in any particular case, and then those people who think that they've been wronged suddenly have an avenue to address it. Overall, this seems like a strong positive to me.
Now, what if people start enforcing frivolous legal rights? Repeal or reform the law that creates the right if it' s so bad. What about people dragging others into court in bad faith? Well, we just streamlined the bureaucracy and took a buzz-saw to the costs, so is it hard to defend against? Perhaps not. Making that perhaps a certain reality would be a good goal of such reform methods. We already allow people with more money and systemic literacy to bully people in this way, and this is a large part of litigiousness in our society now, so this strategy becoming ineffective may reduce it substantially and thus ironically make litigiousness less intense in at least some cases.
1: one proposal off the top of my head (so it may be terrible): sending written documents to a judge with LLMs helping lay people write and refine them, or a cheaper-than-a-litigation-lawyer expert human review service, perhaps, then the judge rules on their own schedule asynchronously for civil disputes without any heavy procedure to deal with.
2: another proposal is to remove law school/JD requirements to obtain a law license, but keeping a rigorous test in place and maybe some less-intense character/background checks, to lower the pay of lawyers
That is not meaningfully different to my estimation, since it is not test-only. Instead, you need to get accepted to an internship/apprenticeship, and then do that for a number of years, prior to having the law license. For gatekeeping purposes, this is functionally the same as requiring getting accepted into a law school and then doing that for a number of years prior to having the law license.
I would expect this to forcibly unlock the bootloaders of every Android phone sold in Germany (because the Linux kernel, used on all such phones, is GPLv2, and to replace it the bootloader must be unlocked, and tivoization means restriction of the right to replace it), yet as far as I know this is not the case.
So, what am I missing? Which specific German cases are you thinking about?
Steck vs AVM. But the bootloader on your phone is still locked because companies don't have to comply with the law until you sue them. If you live in Germany, you should sue them.
> There's some psychological mechanism by which my brain immediately recognizes AI generated text and just short-circuits to "there is no information here".
The roots of llm math in part lie in compressing natural language such that there's only information there, and then running the reverse to create way more text without new information in a somewhat precise theoretical sense.
I love 3b1b and I love that video, but that also isn't exactly what is being said. In particular llm inference does add information (in the meaning in this context) because the output distribution is sampled randomly.
Why can't grand juries do it? I thought that it's when juries intentionally rule against what the law says, while saying otherwise, as a consequence of juries not being able to be penalized for their ruling. I don't seen any reason that the same can't happen with a grand jury.
A web search comes up with articles saying that it's more common with non-grand juries, but that's not the same as "cannot do it", while they also speak about a prosecutor's ability to re-indict, but that still doesn't guarantee them a charge.
Nullification is based on a contradiction in terms: juries cannot be punished for the judgments they render, and prosecutors may not re-try a case to obtain their preferred outcome (“double jeopardy”).
With a grand jury, the second term doesn’t apply: the grand jury’s decision doesn’t prevent a second indictment.
So in other words: grand juries can choose to render “faithless” decisions, but they can’t nullify a case in the sense that matters.
It may have to do with the state of accusations. Pre-grand jury there is no evidence of a crime. Once a grand jury rules with the prosecutor a crime has been defined.
The line between privacy and security is very blurry. Consider this: if Microsoft exfiltrates your keystrokes, it's a privacy violation, but if a random person does the same thing then it's a security violation. You might say that the random person is more likely to use it against you, but then the car insurance companies mining your driving data absolutely do use it against some customers, but that's generally considered to be a privacy violation rather than a security violation.
> Consider this: if Microsoft exfiltrates your keystrokes, it's a privacy violation, but if a random person does the same thing then it's a security violation
No, it's a security violation no matter who does it.
No, we really need to stop using weasel words and call it like it is: Windows is malware. Microsoft has illegally hacked billions of computers, and gets away with it by being a big company and by the world having gotten complacent with big companies constantly hacking everyone they can.
reply