Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

gov.ca.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–360 of 514 posts

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#351

Post by alhirzel »

seltzered_ wrote: post #35

Is part of the issue the concern that runaway ai computing would just happen outside of california? There's another important county election in Sonoma happening about CAFOs where part of the issue is that you may get environmental progress locally, but just end up exporting the issue to another state with lax rules: https://www.kqed.org/news/12006460/the-sonoma-ballot-measure...

Like all laws, there will certainly be those who evade compliance geographically. A well-written law will be looked to as a precedent or "head start" for new places that end up wanting regulatory functions. I feel like the EU and California often end up on this "leading edge" with regard to technology and privacy. While this can seem like a futile position to be in, it paves the way and is a required step for a good law to find a global foothold.

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#354

Post by bigmattystyles »

stego-tech wrote: post #347
benreesman wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’d advise anyone to conduct their career under the assumption that all data was public.

As a wise SysAdmin once told me when I was struggling with my tone in writing: “assume what you’re writing will be read aloud in Court someday.”

It’s probably a google search away, but if I’ve typed it slack/outlook/whatever, but not sent it because I then thought better of it, did the app still record it somewhere? I’m almost sure it has to be and I would like to apologize in advance to my senior leadership…

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#355

Post by jquery »

zzrzzr wrote: post #244
jquery wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These "activists" will go nowhere, because it's not coming from a well meaning place of wanting to stop fraudsters, but insists that all trans women are frauds and consistently misgenders them across the entire website. I wouldn't take anything they said seriously. Also I clicked two of those links and found no allegations of rape, just a few ciswomen who didn't want to be around transwomen. I have a suggestion, how…

> I wouldn't take anything they said seriously. Also I clicked two of those links and found no allegations of rape, See https://4w.pub/male-inmate-charged-with-raping-woman-inside-... . This is the inevitable consequence of SB132, and similar laws elsewhere.

Rape is endemic throughout the prison industrial complex, protections for prisoners are nowhere good enough. Subjecting transwomen to rape in men’s prisons isn’t the solution.

The JD Vance/Peter Thiel/SSC rationalist sphere is such a joke. Just a bunch of pretentious bigots who think they’re better than the “stupid” bigots.

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#356

Post by jquery »

UberFly wrote: post #238
jquery wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The law was passed knowing it would make bigots uncomfortable. That's an intended effect, if not a primary one, at least a secondary one.

What a strange comment. I wonder if there was any consideration for the women locked up and powerless in the matter, or was the point really just to "show those bigots"?

If they’re transphobic and don’t want to be around transwomen, they could’ve committed the crime in a state that puts transwomen in with male prisoners (and get raped repeatedly). Of course, those states tend to treat their female inmates much worse than California, so this all seems like special pleading specifically borne out of transphobia.

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#357

Post by mistrial9 »

ants_everywhere wrote: post #342
jodleif wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Makes perfect sense since his elected based on public positions

This is the ideal, but it's often false in meaningful ways. In several US elections, for example, we've seen audio leaked of politicians promising policies to their donors that would be embarrassing if widely publicly known by the electorate. This suggests that politicians and donors sometimes collude to deliberately misrepresent their views to the public in order to secure election.

worse.. a first-hand quote from inside a California Senate committee hearing chamber.. "Don't speak it if you can nod, and don't nod if you can wink" .. translated, that means that in a contentious situation with others in the room, if allies can signal without speaking the words out loud, that is better.. and if the signal can be hidden, better still.

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#358

Post by dangitman »

alkonaut wrote: post #302
worldsayshi wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any law that tries to categorize non-trustworthy content seems doomed to fail. We need to find better ways to communicate trustworthiness, not the other way around. (And I'm not sure adding more laws can help here.)

No I don't think technical means will work fully either. But the thing about these regulations is that you can basically cover the 99% case by just thinking about the 5 largest players in the field, be it regulation for social media, AI or whatever. It doesn't matter that the law has loopholes or that some players aren't affected at all. Regulation that helps somewhat in a large majority of cases is massive.

[dead]

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#359

Post by mistrial9 »

marshray wrote: post #269
bunabhucan wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the average. It's bought and sold on a spot market. If you try to sell CA power in AZ and the losses are 10% then SRP or TEP or whoever can undercut your price with local power/lower losses.

I just don't see 10% remaining a big deal while solar continues its exponential cost reduction. Solar does not consume fuel, so when local supply exceeds local demand the cost of incremental production drops to approximately zero. Nobody's undercutting zero, even with 10% losses. IMO, this is what 'winning' looks like.

this is interesting but missing some scale aspects.. capital and concentrated power are mutual attractors in some sense.. these AI datacenters in their current incarnations are massive.. so the number and size of solar panels needed, changes the situation. Common electrical power interchange (grid) is carefully regulated and monitored in all jurisdictions. In other words, there is little chance of an ad-hoc local network of small or mid-size solar systems making enough power unto themselves, without passing through regulated transmission facilities IMHO.

Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047

#360

Post by freedomben »

dang wrote: post #249
guywithahat wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would you change it? The WSJ article already contains his reasoning, plus a lot of other interesting content from major players

Someone emailed and suggested it. I looked at the pdf and it seemed to be more substantive than the usual political statement, so I sort of trusted that it would be better. Also it's not paywalled. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41690454 remains pinned to the top of the thread, so people have the opportunity to read both. (Actually we usually prefer the best third-party article to press releases, but nothing's…

FWIW I think you made the right call here. The PDF is substantive, primary, and has no paywall. The pinned WSJ article at the top gives best of both worlds.
Post reply on HN