Didn't realize this was such a niche idea that you'd be downvoted. I don't think anybody really benefits when a child or grandchild coasts through life on the basis of their ancestor's success.
I have encountered people for whom it is an obvious universal moral truth that authors of works should be able to monopolize their works indefinitely, and any attempt to curtail it is an attempt to steal rightfully earned money from poor struggling authors.
Everyone benefits from the idea that killing off the copyright holder is not profitable. If copyrights expired on creator death, there would be unwholesome motivations.
Having grandchildren “coast through life” is based on copyright lasting 70 years past the death of the author. But seriously having the rights disappear in 10 years is hardly an incentive for murder.
Honestly, I find it difficult to understand why a fixed 40 year term isn’t long enough to benefit from copyright. Trademark is already indefinite, JK Rowling is hardly going to be meaningfully harmed if someone publishes a work based on the first Harry Potter book in 2037. Less wealthy authors generally need to keep working anyway. Publish a hit at 22 and perhaps it’s time to start saving for retirement just like everyone else.
Another point for the copyright term being a fixed 5~10 years. The current system already incentivizes such agressive tactics to anyone with sufficient patience. If a teenager's favorite book has just been written by a young adult, they only have one course of action if they want to live to see it in the public domain for a few years.
Are there any notable instances of murder for copyright reasons?
The current law is still extends the copyright of a work until a time after the author's death. So if one wished to hasten the expiration of those rights, the motivation still exists; although perhaps diminished by a 70 year wait.
Well, after accomplishing the author's untimely demise, the murderer (or facilitator) would have to wait 70 years to profit (unless 70-years future contracts on copyright expirations are a thing, I wouldn't know)
Seems a lot of risk and effort for a small chance of profit.
Honestly it sounds like the "right" way to do it would be electric ground vehicles pulling the planes into position, as with tugboats in water. Plane never need carry batteries into the sky and saves a literal ton of fuel.
IIRC towing to and from the runway has two major issues:
- standard towing tractors are really slow when towing, nowhere near taxiing speed, so you need a fleet of heavier duty "fast tow", possibly dedicated (depending on price)
- more traffic around the runway, which creates more airport complexity
Taxibot does exist tho, and is certified, and used in a few airports. Though I think it's only hybrid not electric.
Bigger issue is that the engines need to be idled for a while anyway to get up to proper temps, etc. you don’t want to start the engines and jam them into full takeoff thrust 5 seconds later.
True, the engines need to be warmed up and the hydraulics need to be pressurised, but given e.g. airbus recommends single engine taxi without APU (SETWA) warming up the engines probably doesn't take that long in the grand scheme of things. Definitely not the 15~25mn of taxi. From the sources I can find, "normal" warmup takes 2~5mn depending how long ago the engine was shut down, unless outside temps are exceptionally low, and you can do that while reaching the end of your taxi.
The software in modern engines wouldn’t let you do that anyway. The engine startup process can be quite long - several minutes in a 737 MAX - while the engine’s ECU brings things to proper temperatures etc.
But with e-taxi, the startup cycle could be performed while taxiing, potentially saving airlines time on pushback as well as fuel/maintenance cost savings.
That's a highly idealized view that I hope we can agree doesn't completely jive with what we see in society today. If a small number of shareholders reap all the profits, the vast majority of the benefit from automation flows to them, and it's even possible for the lives of average people to get worse as automation increases, as average people then have less leverage over those who own the companies.
Incomes are up, but the expenses are up as well, especially with the upcoming changes in healthcare for people on the ACA.
Also any comparison of wage growth vs corporate profit growth over the last 30 years shows that wages have not kept pace with the increase in productivity.
So incomes are only just barely keeping up, when they should be booming.
Household income is more than just wages. Household income can go up while wages remain stagnant or shrinking because other pieces of the pie are increasing (e.g. work benefits, investments, money from the government). https://fredblog.stlouisfed.org/2016/09/sources-of-household...
The price of housing can rise even faster than incomes.
Housing is only a part of the basket used to measure inflation. Housing's price rose faster than the weighted basket average, some other goods and services rose slower or even fell.
Many people don’t see housing inflation - if you bought a house in 2020 and house prices were up 80% since then it doesn’t affect your housing costs, especially in the US where mortgage rates are fixed for length of term even if interest rates sky rocket.
As long as accommodation isn't 100% of your basket of goods and services you use to measure inflation, accommodation can rise in price faster (or slower) than the basket. This ain't exactly rocket science.
If the mandatory basket item expense raises, it should also become a larger portion of basket, as the basket is supposed to measure the cost of living. So either CPI is not properly measuring the cost of living, or there isn't an affordability crisis.
You cannot have rising inflation adjusted wages and worse spending power, unless the inflation is not being measured meaningfully.
Yet more and more people are struggling to afford even basic necessities and one can only dream of the luxury of the 50's when a single working class person was able to pay and cover for housing, car, family and even have enough for leisure. Where has all the economic surplus gone? Right...to the bourgeois, the capital owning class that exceedingly extract more and more of the wealth generated by the society.
On average, most large cap stocks (MSFT, GOOG, AAPL, etc) are owned by millions of retail investors through 401Ks, mutual funds, ETFs, and direct ownership.
Actually I believe this graph is half of US-owned equities and mutual funds is owned by the top 1% of Americans right? This doesn't include other extremely large holders such as sovreign wealth funds like norway/singapore or very large pension funds like the ontario teachers fund etc....
The USA is rather unique in its low pensions compared to countries in the EU or Australia (notable for its high contribution rates).
I'm all in favour of lowering barriers to entry, too. We need more competition.
Be that from startups, from foreign companies (like from China), or from companies in other sectors branching out (eg Walmart letting you open bank accounts).
Everybody can be a shareholder in a publicly traded company. It's pretty easy.
If you want to spin up some conspiracy theory about elites snatching up productivity gains, you should focus on top managers.
(Though honestly, it's mostly just land. The share of GDP going to capital has been roughly steady over the decade. The share going to land has increased slightly at the cost of the labour share.
The labour share itself has seen some shake up in its distribution. But that doesn't involve shareholders.)
Everyone with excess disposable income can be a shareholder in a publicly traded company.
The oligarchy of the CxOs and boards and cross-pollination has led to concentration of the rewards of companies into the their hands, compared to 40 years ago.
All the productivity gains have not gone to labor, its predominately gone to equity and then extracted via options and buy backs to avoid tax which means public service and investment has gone down.
The craziness of the USG borrowing to fund tax cuts is the ultimate example.
> [...] and then extracted via options and buy backs to avoid tax which means public service and investment has gone down.
You seem very confused about how capital markets work. Are you also suggesting buy backs are morally different from dividends?
In any case, the whole point of investing (at least to the investor) is to eventually get more money back than you put in. Returning money to investor is not a bug, it's the point.
> The craziness of the USG borrowing to fund tax cuts is the ultimate example.
To paraphrase Harville Hendrix, we are wounded in relationship and we heal in relationship. Compassion is a feeling, not a thought. I don't think a galaxy of LLMs would ever discover the precepts of Buddhism (or psychology) on their own.
Your comment seems to imply "these views aren't valid" without any evidence for that claim. Of course the theft claim was a strong one to make without evidence too. So, to that point--it's pretty widely accepted as fact that DeepSeek was at its core a distillation of ChatGPT. The question is whether that counts as theft. As to evidence, to my knowledge it's a combination of circumstantial factors which add up to paint a pretty damning picture:
(1) Large-scale exfiltration of data from ChatGPT when DeepSeek was being developed, and which Microsoft linked to DeepSeek
(2) DeepSeek's claim of training a cutting-edge LLM using a fraction of the compute that is typically needed, without providing a plausible, reproducible method
> Large-scale exfiltration of data from ChatGPT when DeepSeek was being developed, and which Microsoft linked to DeepSeek
This is not the same thing at all. Current legal doctrine is that ChatGPT output is not copyrightable, so at most Deepseek violated the terms of use of ChatGPT.
That isn't IP theft.
To add to that example, there are numerous open-source datasets that are derived from ChatGPT data. Famously, the Alpaca dataset kick-started the open source LLM movement by fine tuning Llama on a GPT-derived dataset:
https://huggingface.co/datasets/tatsu-lab/alpaca
That’s an argument made about training the initial model. But the comment stated that DeepSeek stole its research from the US which is a much stronger allegation without any evidence to it.
For starters ChatGPT was pretty much trained on "stolen" data. However I actually do support it. I think both cases - ChatGPT preying on world wide data and Deepseek using such data by partially "borrowing" it from ChatGPT are fair game.
That's a fair point. I suspect that to one outside the field, their touting major breakthroughs while trying to conceal that their first model was a distillation may cause a sense of skepticism as to the quality of their research. From what I've gathered, their research actually has added meaningfully to understandings of optimal model scaling and faster training.
Here's an umbrella doc from the USTR, and the good stuff:
China used foreign ownership restrictions, such as joint venture (JV) requirements and foreign equity limitations, and various administrative review and licensing processes, to require or pressure technology transfer from U.S. companies.
2. China’s regime of technology regulations forced U.S. companies seeking to license technologies to Chinese entities to do so on non-market-based terms that favor Chinese recipients.
3. China directed and unfairly facilitated the systematic investment in, and acquisition of, U.S. companies and assets by Chinese companies to obtain cutting-edge technologies and IP and generate the transfer of technology to Chinese companies.
4. China conducted and supported unauthorized intrusions into, and theft from, the computer networks of U.S. companies to access their IP, including trade secrets, and confidential business information.
As mentioned - no one has claimed that DeepSeek in its entirety was stolen from the U.S.
It is almost a certainty based on decades of historical precedent of systematic theft that techniques, research, and other IP was also systematically stolen for this critical technology.
Don't close your eyes when the evidence, both rigorously proven and common sense, is staring you in the face.
>Your comment seems to imply "these views aren't valid" without any evidence for that claim.
No, your comment seems to be a deflection. You made an outstanding claim, that DS stole some IP, and have been asked for outstanding evidence, or at least some evidence. You need to provide it if you want to be taken seriously.
>Large-scale exfiltration of data from ChatGPT when DeepSeek was being developed, and which Microsoft linked to DeepSeek
Where's the evidence for that? I also have a claim that I can't back up with anything more than XLab's report: before the release of R1, there were multiple attempts to hack DS's systems, which nobody noticed. [1]
You really seem to have no idea what you're talking about. R1 was an experiment on teaching the model to reason on its own, exactly to avoid large amounts of data in post-training. It also partially failed, they called the failed snapshot R1-Zero. And it's pretty different from any OpenAI or Anthropic model.
>DeepSeek's claim of training a cutting-edge LLM using a fraction of the compute that is typically needed, without providing a plausible, reproducible method
DeepSeek published a lot more about their models than any top tier US lab before them, including their production code. And they're continuing doing so. All their findings in R1 are highly plausible and most are replicated to some degree and adopted in the research and industry. Moonshot AI trained their K2 on DeepSeek's architecture with minor tweaks (not to diminish their novel findings). That's a really solid model.
Moreover, they released their DeepSeek-Math-7B-RL back in April 2024. [2] It was a tiny model that outperformed huge then-SOTA LLMs like Claude 3 Opus in math, and validated their training technique (GPRO). Basically, they made the first reasoning model worth talking about. Their other optimizations (MLA) can be traced back to DeepSeek v2.
That's n=1 nonsense, not evidence. GPT contamination was everywhere, even Claude used to claim to be GPT-3 occasionally, or Reddit Anti-Evil Team. (yes, really) All models have overlapping datasets that are also contaminated with previous models outputs, and mode collapse makes them converge on similar patterns which seem to come and go with each generation.
If you were looking to buy a house right now, you'd be looking at a bunch of options that are worse than what you currently have. You experience this as lock-in but in reality the "problem" is just that you have something significantly better than anything you (or others) can find on the market right now. And of course that's actually a fantastic boon.
But part of that is because people who would otherwise want to sell their house are choosing NOT to, because they don't want to lose their great mortgage. If we didn't have these long, fixed rate, mortgages, there would be a lot more housing liquidity and prices wouldn't be so inflated.
Now, there is a cycle of "rates go down, there is a flurry of re-finances and everyone locks in the lower rates and new buyers enter the market, and housing prices go up and up", and then rates go up, but housing prices don't go down because people can't afford to buy the houses at the same prices anymore, and so no one wants to sell (because the current owners are paying below market rates for their mortgage, so they face no selling pressure like they would if there WEREN'T long term fixed rate mortages), so there is no decrease in prices.
if you specialize in looking for black swans, and you've looked for more black swans than anybody ever, and all the black swans you thought you'd found have turned out to be sooty white swans, people might be interested in reading about your experience and have their faith shaken that black swans actually exist.
I'm reminded of the story of dragon sightings in Great Britain: after the printing press and newspapers and newspaper reporters chasing stories emerged, as news distribution out from city centers into rural areas increased, it seems dragons picked up and moved farther away, only being spotted in the hinterlands without news.
You apparently would keep your mind open to the idea that dragons don't like the smell of newsprint as no other conclusion could be more plausible sheerly on the basis of logic?
It's really essential that one have (1) down (to be self-constituted) down in order for (3) not to lead to a circle of confusion. If I feel very assured in my own relationship with the universe, that doesn't depend on how anybody else sees me, and my security does not depend on others being happy with me. And when I don't need to make anybody happy, connection and compassion arise naturally from a place of curiosity--there are feelings of abundance and security underlying it rather than confusion or anxiety.
That sounds simple but the self-constitution part takes years of serious searching and work; some things (good therapists, good meditation teachers, good books, consistent practice, etc.) help the journey along, but there is no quick route.
Any particular books you recommend? people keep mentioning _how to win friends and influence people_ and I am not sure if it's just mindless productivity gurus hype
Right now I'm reading As It Is by Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche (if you don't have previous experience with Buddhism I'd recommend starting with something broader like Zen Mind Beginner's Mind, and find yourself a Buddhist meditation group!), and Self-Therapy by Jay Earley. Something else very much written for an intellectually-oriented audience but that gives inklings of a ladder into non-intellectual being, is Unwinding Anxiety by Judson A. Brewer. I liked it at the time, though I found I needed more help practicing the things that that book suggests, which led me deeper into Buddhism and eventually towards Dzogchen.
I wouldn't recommend How to Win Friends and Influence People, it is all about fine-tuning behavior to make a better impression on people, and that doesn't sound like the heart of the issue you described. The heart of that issue _could_ be that one clings to mind-concepts rather than trusting the whole being and feeling a connection with the universe. If so, one must slowly learn to trust the felt experience of life, to know that gut feelings and open-heartedness are just as important as thoughts (moreso in many respects), to trust that one can relax one's whole being and be carried by an infinite love within. It is a gradual progression.
Do you think another term is more appropriate to describe the experiences underlying CPTSD? It's now quite broadly recognized that its effect on the psyche is severe and if anything broader in impact and more difficult to heal than acute trauma.
> Do you think another term is more appropriate to describe the experiences underlying CPTSD?
True CPTSD as diagnosed over time by a clinician is the result of complex traumas (complex, specifically, as that’s part of the definition. It’s what the C is for). The term is valid in that context.
In common social media language, even the term CPTSD has become diluted. It was intended to represent complex cases of PTSD which were edge cases, and correspondingly rare.
At some point the social media version of CPTSD emerged as a generic term and nearly everyone who self-diagnosed as having PTSD started upgrading themselves to CPTSD.
The comment above is right that “trauma” has become so generic as to cover everything stressful or saddening in common vernacular. The concept of CPTSD was supposed to be a step above even normal trauma, but now even CPTSD is being brought out as a generic term for any post-trauma response, which was never the definition of CPTSD.
A similar trend is happening on social media with the ADHD influencers now upgrading themselves to “AuDHD” which they say is a special more difficult variant of ADHD combined with Autism. My friends in psychiatry are at their wits end with all of the people coming in and demanding Autism diagnoses or “AuDHD” diagnoses despite not showing Autistic traits at all.
There’s an arms race going on where some people try to amplify experiences into something much more dramatic. These therapy and psychiatry terms start to lose their meaning when they get adopted by social media.
> Is there such a thing as being fashionably disordered?
Anecdotally, absolutely yes. Based on what the Instagram and YouTube feeds have sent me over the last couple of years, ADHD in particular (Autism less so, but as the parent notes, "AuDHD" is becoming very popular) is totally glamourised at this point, much to the detriment of people who actually have to manage ADHD and Autism, I assume.
There is an enormous amount of monetised content around it.
The ADHD culture is particularly dangerous because it is a license to get dangerous addictive drugs that frequently get diverted. Used as directed people don't have trouble in the short term but I know a lot of 50-somethings who were in school districts that were early adopters of the ADHD construct and a lot of them are in terrible shape. When people save up a week worth of meds and take them at once they often wind up in the psych ward.
When you see the drugged out people who drive people out of cities into the suburbs or give you another reason to order a private taxi for your burrito [1], note that psychosis is frequently caused or exacerbated by amphetamines. Plenty of people who get a prescription and who feel poor and that the world is unfair develop a "tolerance" for their meds because they are keeping 1 and selling 2 and they're contributing to that visible disorder you see.
is ignored which is that by being a developmental disability "autism" avoids the stigma that a diagnosis of severe mental ilness would bring (e.g. confirmed bipolar Kanye West thinks he is autistic, Elon Musk who sure acts like he's bipolar but is not diagnosed also thinks he is autistic) If you told the parents of the kid who's being bullied in first grade who shows some signs of anxiety and seems to be dressed oddly that he has a 10% chance of losing his mind completely as a young adult they'd be horrified. Tell them that he has autism and they can get more resources.
Your friends in psychiartry...are they acknowledging the impact of living under oppression as a direct cause of issues & advocating for an end to oppression?
Because that's what many healers outside of western medicine are touting.
People are amplifying because the western medicine approach isn't addressing underlying issues & so people are trying to explain the compounding of their issues in the language of western medicine. The dismissiveness in these comments is a direct driver of this culture.
I'll be honest, I don't think I would've interpreted "demanding an AuDHD diagnosis" as "explaining the compounding of their issues in the language of western medicine". Especially if their issues are just oppression. Perhaps I'm just misunderstanding.
Western medicine is well aware of the fact that they can't treat the underlying cause of things like autism and ADHD. If you're a real patient with one of these diagnoses (or even depression), they will tell you that upfront. They're not pretending to fix anything with pills.
This phenomenon is not new; the love of drama that even common and routine trauma leaves many people with makes these sorts of attractions to diagnoses very appealing. I once hung out a lot with a class of masters students in experimental psychology and they all went thru evaluating their own minds thru the lens of various pathologies.
My own childhood included the relatively common experience of being sexually assaulted by a relative and being threatened with death if I talked about it, and as a young adult, while I never quite believed I had MPD, I read so many books by and on multiple personality disorder, and took both comfort and inspiration from the stories.
Like so many other things in our human society, networked technology is making this part of society more visible.
> I once hung out a lot with a class of masters students in experimental psychology and they all went thru evaluating their own minds thru the lens of various pathologies.
Something similar happens with medical students. They kind of start to recognize themselves in all kinds of physical conditions. It is fairly common phase they go through.
It looks to me like many of the psych diagnoses come down to how much trouble we have with the situation.
And, personally, I look at the world, do I meet the criteria for Asperger's? Probably, although without a time machine there doe not appear to be any way to be certain. But it's a so-what I have had no reason to ever talk to a psychiatrist about. A label won't change reality, it won't provide any solutions, why should I bother?
I think that if you truly "have" Asperger people will make you feel it quite hard. You are very boring and odd to them.
If they need you, they'll play along but for the most part you'll get singled out and isolated quickly in many common social situations.
There has been a romantisation of Asperger/autism because people only want to look at the "benefits". But the truth is that it's a very isolating experience and the tradeoffs are rarely very nice.
In a similar fashion, people will romanticize being very tall, when they are actually many pain points to that experience as well...
We always desire what we don't have, because we can't be fully aware of the compromises required without experiencing them.
Most people really cannot fathom how much of a debilitating experience it can be.
I always end up in a place where people seem weirdly obtuse, imprecise and just irrational.
Even when I make big efforts to connect, I feel alone because it feels like we are not even speaking the same language.
Of course, there are some social groups/spaces where it's much better but I currently do not have access to them because of poor life choices and bad habits ingrained from a very difficult childhood. But I'm working on changing that.
It's not like I'm not used to it, anyway. At the age of 4, the responsible women at the kindergarten told my mother that I was "too different" (only recently learned this, not that I didn't realize something was going on back then).
I have always been able to make friends somehow but there is always a weird disconnect.
"True CPTSD" doesn't exist as a diagnosis yet in the DSM. Referring to it that way is highly disingenuous.
I was recently diagnosed as "AuDHD". I noticed that doctors who don't understand anything outside of depression and anxiety were more likely to refer to autism as a "fad".
The DSM isn't the only book, and is not the singular source of diagnosis around the world, so believing that because CPTSD is not in the DSM and therefore doesn't exist is also disingenuous.
The ICD does have an entry for Complex PTSD, but it may not match what many people think of as CPTSD, which from what I see is closer to what Bessel van der Kolk called "developmental trauma."
Or: this is a system that forces mindful consideration of notes, photos, etc. If you want them to persist, you must at least look at them once a year. No dusty boxes in the attic.
Thanks for the thoughtful discussion — I deeply appreciate both the support and the challenges to this idea.
OS Yamato doesn’t intend to replace traditional archiving. It’s more of a philosophical experiment: what if our digital space reflected the seasons of life — blooming, fading, letting go?
I agree that some data — like photos of loved ones — deserve lasting preservation. Yamato allows you to mark something as a favorite (♡) to keep it longer, but even those gently fade if untouched for a year. Not to erase, but to invite mindful curation.
This project isn't trying to be for everyone — it's just an offering for those who find beauty in impermanence.
Always open to refining the vision — thank you for helping shape it.
reply