All of this OpenClaw / Moltbot bullshit is annoying. But it’s comments like yours that are slowly giving me a stroke.

Just putting things on a cloud server that would not destroy your life if leaked, that is not how IT security works.

We designed security best practices for IT software for decades, this vibe coded wet dream of any North Korean hacker is throwing all of it over board.

It’s malware. Do not install malware.

The other part of the equation is people like you not understanding what running insecure software that allows for unnoticed access to your cloud hosted machine really means.

Once I have access to your cloud hosted Ubuntu server I have access to where, when and how you connect to that server.

I can then not just use your server to hide my own criminal activities and not give a shit if you go to jail for it because I used your server as a staging point for cybercrime activities and bounce off some other idiots Openclaw servers, I also have your home ip address.

Good luck explaining the FBI that a lobster was responsible for running a ransomware campaign against a company that deals with critical infrastructure and not you.

I pity those poor agents already because that will be part of their exhausting paperwork in the near future. AI did it sir, I swear. Doesn’t matter son, you better get your anus stretched and prepare for a ten year stay in a prison with real criminals that will greet you excitedly with a "fresh meat is on the menu boys".

From your home IP I can break into your router, or I don’t even need to because manipulating whatever you download from that server to your personal devices is likely enough to get access to the machine you connect from and probably your phone.

Suddenly your 2FA is no longer safe because I have access to both devices you use to authenticate everything from bank transfers to logins. And because I have access to your home network I can figure out from network activity alone when you sleep. I can destroy your whole life within the 4 to 8 hours you’re unconscious.

Once I’m in your router or personal pc I can then also scan for devices on your home network and put a persistent backdoor on one of the countless Chinese home appliances people use these days. Unless you burn your house down, you will never be able to get me out of it.

Once I have permanent access to your network I can watch you fap to heterotransgayporn over your camera and then blackmail you. I clone your voice, i take enough pictures or get them from your NAS to clone your face and steal your identity.

Maybe I open an account somewhere with videos of your wife undressing or the private photos on your daughters laptop and once your cloud server is burned, which I find out from the footage of heavily armed agents kicking in your door one morning, which I will also sell on the darknet for the amusement of others, I bleed you dry financially and disappear in the smoke.

You won’t need a lobster anymore to order your sneakers. You will never eat one again because you’re dead broke.

But you will turn the same color as one once you find out that I exposed everyone you love on the internet and made money from it and they will never be able to delete it from the internet again.

Congratulations, only putting things there within lobster reach that would not destroy you if leaked, basically killed your whole family.

I need to put it this drastically because that is how cybercriminals will put you and your family at risk irl without blinking an eye.

Companies lose millions every week because one of their senior employees fell victim to phishing attacks and then got blackmailed with compromising material of themselves. And those people all have the same in common. They think they are much smarter than they really are.

You thinking to "only put things there within lobsters reach that would not destroy you if leaked" puts you in the same group as any other idiot that have been hacked and their life’s ruined in the past.

Become smarter or a victim, your choice.

Are there really examples of this? Being criminally liable after someone hacks your computer just because you suck at security? Framing you is another story but that seems unnecessary when their in another country anyways.

no but can you prove it in court? Everyone says they got hacked.

In Hamilton v. ACCU-TEK, 62 F. Supp. 2d 802 (E.D.N.Y. 1999), the court found that a general duty to avoid negligence is assumed.

The court in McCall v. Wilder, 913 S.W.3d 150, generally detailed these elements of negligence.

In Kubert v. Best, the New Jersey Appellate Division held that “the sender of a text message can potentially be liable if an accident is caused by texting, but only if the sender knew or had special reason to know that the recipient would view the text while driving and thus be distracted."

In https://via.library.depaul.edu/law-review/vol49/iss2/12/ Robert Rabin has provided a categorization of cases decided primarily under common law reasoning that is helpful here.

Referring to what he terms “enabling torts,” Professor Rabin identifies a number of cases in which courts have held defendants liable even when unconnected third parties have actively caused harm to plaintiffs.

More modern recognition is that criminal acts are sometimes foreseeable, and where specific circumstances reflect that foreseeability, it is not justifiable to cut off liability of the party who enabled the tortfeaso.

It is not that compromised system owners are directly causing injury to the targets, but rather that they are furnishing the attacker with the tools necessary to launch the attack.

So in case of Openclaw, there are multiple public articles like this one warning of the security implications using the software.

If you rent and run a server facing the open Internet and voluntarily install Openclaw, I think it’s fair to say that you are neglecting your duty to avoid negligence, and on top you’re likely contractually instructed to keep your own server safe in the user agreement with the hosting companies, otherwise you need to go with a managed product.

And you are obviously able to install and use a complex software like Openclaw to do things on your behalf. Therefore being negligent in securing the server opens up liability for whatever you or someone that hacks your server does.

For example, if you live in a neighborhood where maybe one car gets stolen a year and you leave your car unlocked with the key in the ignition to fetch something from your house, if someone steals your car and does a drive-by shooting with it you are most likely not liable.

If you’re a police officer and do the same thing in a crime ridden neighborhood and provide criminals with a tool to do crime, just to stop them afterwards or push your crime solving rate, you’re definitely liable for the death of someone they shoot out of that car.

It’s complicated, but yes, if you’re technically savvy and also read the fine print in your server rent agreement that tells you you need to take appropriate security measures so your server doesn’t harm others on the internet, I don’t see how a judge would let you off the hook. Similar common sense laws exist in most parts of the world.

tl;dr: free ddos bot for all

On unrealized gains, wait, what??

Why is this shocking? Surely if you hadn’t grown up with the very technical idea of unrealized gains, this would seem totally normal. The surprising thing is that we let ourselves be convinced in the past that making money with money should be tax advantaged compared to making money with labor.

Unrealized gains are gains.

Do you have to pay tax on unrealized gains with realized money? A classic problem with exercising employee stock options and holding the stock is that you have a tax event on the unrealized gain, but if the stock drops substantially, you still owe the tax money on the unrealized gain, but you cannot sell the stock for enough to pay for it. This happened to a lot of people around 2001.

Paying for unrealized gains with realized money is not a situation anyone want to be in.

I was thinking of 'real' holdings rather than options that don't have a liquid value. Not all unrealized gains are the same. Thanks for pointing out the complexity.

Yes.

Say you have €80k in investments. Markets go up, in one year time your investments are worth €90k. You did not sell.

That means you had €10k in unrealized capital gains. Subtract the €1800 per person threshold. €8200, 36% tax is €2952 tax to be paid at the start of the year.

Losses give you tax credits redeemable against future capital gains (not against income tax from employment)

How does that even work? What does it apply to? Say I own a 100% share in a business, each year does the government appraise it and pretty much require me to divest a portion of it to pay the tax?

Unrealized capital gains taxes are crazy all in an effort to own the rich or something. Meanwhile the people they're perceived as targeting have all the resources to avoid it.

Yes, you are supposed to either sell part of the stocks to cover the yearly tax or you need to dip into your savings account to find money to cover the tax.

I don't know about non-publicly listed companies, I assume you indeed need to appraise yearly.

The rich don't pay these taxes as the unrealised capital gains tax is only for private individuals, not companies. The rich have their assets in companies / shells.

A 36% tax?! Nobody's going to invest in that environment, since the taxes will really sap your effective compounding rate. That's a great way to push all your finance people out of the country.

I think you will find people are investing. And working.

And bailing out for the US, understandably, as soon as their hard work starts to pay off.

Well, that's how it used to go, anyway.

Assuming you're not going to somehow avoid paying your tax when you do eventually liquidate, paying year to year is not that crazy.

Paying tax on money you make because you already have money is far better than playing tax on your time you sold for salary.

This really sucks, I hope Apple sorts it out, I wonder what one can do to put pressure on Apple - I suspect you may need a lawyer to write them in order to get your issue escalated.

I don't like that people just shrug and say this is how all big tech is.

Apple charges a premium and built their brand name on customer service.

But they have stopped caring about the customer.

I was also a loyal Apple customer for 2 decades and used to recommend them to everyone.

Now I recommend them to no one.

I've switched my phone back to android a few years ago to avoid apple lock-in. I still use an ipad pro and several macs and peripherals, sets of airpods and apple tv and what not - then I wanted to buy the watch - and was told it cannot work with any of their tablets or computer and cannot be activated without an apple phone. OK apple.

One day my debit card expired while on long overseas travel, suddenly I was unable to install apps I already paid for on my mac and other devices, update any apps, or install free apps, I could not pay with a different card because those were in a different region and would have required a region switch locking me out of a lot of content and apps. So for several months I could not install many of my apps I bought on my other sevice or update or install free apps. OK Apple.

I also remember how the base config of Apple laptops were 8gb ram and 256gb SSD when all other decent ones were on 16 and 2tb - and remember apple is supposed to be a premium brand and they're supposed to not burn you with a default config. OK apple. Then they charge you 3 times more for the upgrade from 256gb ssd to 2tb than what 2tb costs retail. OK Apple.

I still love their tablets and laptops and even the mac mini. But I've already started to mentally prepare for a switch to Linux and maybe x86 or other hardware.

Apple cannot be trusted. They are a fashion company and not a tech company any more. Jobs is dead.

Plan your exit, reduce your exposure, soon they will be so evil and dysfunctional that you will regret it.

Don't trust them with your most valuable data. Use other services. Use a diverse mix of providers, no apple exclusivity. If you tie your entire life to one cloud, especially Apple, you have set yourself up for future ruin.

Their software quality and reliability is also slowly slipping. Everything is being dumbed down. Their business processes are becoming a broken maze. Apple used to be a company that aimed to satisfy simultaneously the power user and the basic user, now they only care about optimising for the casual user mass market, power user is going to have an increasingly tough time with them. Remember it is now a fashion company, watch their keynotes and believe the vapid image they project.

The real question is whether genetics is a substantial or a negligible influence on intelligence (or proxy measures like IQ).

If genetics is less than 5 percent I would consider that something worth ignoring.

If it is 10 percent it is substantial enough to make a difference at the extremes.

If it is 20 percent that is real serious business.

Anything higher means we should really sit up and take notice of this fact.

Another issue is, what is it that you're trying to use it for?

If you're arguing against a eugenicist then it's not just about the percentage, in that case you have to distinguish between genetic and heritable. Suppose that there are some set of four genes that, in just the right combination, are worth 5 IQ points. That's, by definition, genetic, but it won't have a strong correlation with heritability because every kid has four chances to get the combination wrong. Or, if the combination does something bad, four chances to get it right even if their parents didn't. So past performance is no guarantee of future results.

By contrast, if you're trying to decide whether to allocate more resources to kids who already show promise, you care about the individual's natural potential rather than the statistical probability that it will be similar to their parents, so it doesn't matter what was more likely, it matters what actually happened. And by the point you're performing the evaluation, you can't go back in time and change things like the prenatal environment for someone who is already born, so in that context those things belong in the "nature" column and "nurture" only gets the things you could still affect.

Surely what people want to "use it for" is completely orthogonal to the science itself?

Let the science science, and policy makers make policy.

I think the problem comes when we want scientists to make policy recommendations.

I think scientists should help us determine what the facts are, not decide what to do about them.

What to do is for courts and democracy and for individuals to decide?

Even the choice of which question you want the scientists to answer is inherently political, because it frames the issue and causes the available data to contain the answer to that question instead of some other one, which influences (and therefore can be manipulated to influence) what conclusions can be drawn from the available information.

Please look at the examples in the article and consider re-calibrating your numbers here. The lower range of heritability means that it is mostly noise.

Why is that? Odd that the article claims otherwise:

> 50% may sound like a solid heritability figure, but the associated correlation is rather modest.

If someone makes a linux laptop that is as good as the a bleeding edge apple macbook air, it is shut-up&take-my-money.

But it is hard to imagine a company spending the time to smooth a linux config on their hardware config and make sure it reaches the "just works" that apple has!

Boy would I love it! Please, someone do this! Getting tired of Apple's walled garden become ever more locked up and enshittification.

I also want it. I dislike this idea "make it illegal I don't want other people to have the freedom to do something I dislike". Of you don't like unupgradable products, then don't buy them. I like upgradability - apple makes some things like the SSD non-uogradeable without much benefit. But many other parts gain different benefits when you don't try to make everything infinitely upgradable. I really want this non-enshittified macbook alternative!!!! Shut up and take my money.

I don't mind people doing things I dislike (and honestly I'd enjoy changing laptop every month as much as anyone else), I simply don't want people to damage too much the planet where I and my family live.

Can someone from the field provide examples of specific drugs or break through therapies that are approved for human use that we would not have had without breakthroughs in protein folding compute?

Same! I main macos, love the hardware, but I keep a very close eye on Linux (asahi, omarchy etc) in case Apple gets any more toxic, and I am forced to jump ship to something else, and that something else won't be windoze.

The last straw with MacOS was when my US bank cards expired, I could no longer update apps I already paid for, I could no longer install apps I already paid for. Everything was held hostage, could not install FREE apps via the appstore on macos or on ipad.

That day my eyes opened to what Apple has become.

You simply cannot trust Apple with your computing future. They're a fashion company now.

and plus one here! I don't know, I like my mac workflow but irritation and aggravation have crept in more frequently of late. Last week I was told a binary that clang++ had just produced from my own code could not be run because Apple couldn't check whether it was safe.. And what to make of power users complaining bitterly about Tahoe & liquid glass etc? I'm hanging on to Ventura for now.

Not all rich guys are part of the ORGANIZED RICH.

Some are, many/most aren't.

For some rich guys whole point of being rich is to be maximally independent.

Some billionaires are all kinds of weird flavor of Anarcho Capitalist (completely anti government), libertarian (small government), objectivist (suspicious of government and against overbearing regulations and mob control).

Not all, but many. I think there is an important distinction between independent minded successful people and crapitalists, the ones who collude with the government and enforce their fortunes via regulatory capture.

Not every rich person is obsessed with controlling the world and other people.

Many just want to live their own lives, and want as little as possible interaction with the government.

I'm not talking about a small capitalist with a nice house and a nice car.

I'm talking about the super rich.

Thr super rich have to be the government to be super rich and the little capitalists just ride the wakes made by the big guys.

These ideologies you mention are just political stances made by the rich in order to promote their measures amongst the poor.

Objectivism was made by Ayn Rand and it was promoted so much because it defended capitalism. They disseminate these ideas in order to promote their stances.

Libertarianism and ancapism are inconsistent because it pretends that large capitalists wouldnt immediately organize themselves into another large state power. A state is necessary to not have all out war between the powerful.

Ask any political science major and they dont take these ideas at face value because these ideologies cant exist as such.

They are more like life style politics than real political frameworks.

I suspect the reason they are even espoused is because they represent an immediate weakening of government regulation that can increase profits. The capitalists want people to think it can exist so they can have more power.

But a true libertarian or ancap reality is a pipe dream. Its true purpose is to create less oversight and thus more profits. Your average Joe, like you or me, has about 0 benefit from this.

This is my view too. The shareholders voted for it.

Granted, Musk (or maybe it was a couple board members) did make some strong statements that felt like threats (that if the vote didn’t go through, Musk was going to leave).

But still, it went to a vote.

> Shareholders voted for it. Don't understand how the will of Tesla Shareholders is a corporate governance failure... couldn't read the rest of the article behind paywall, but the premise seems so borked that I'm not going to bother.

Sounds like a failure on to think critically.

The board consists of long time friends of Musk's, people who are heavily invested in his other companies (and so have and want to continue maintain their positive relationship with him), and his brother.

It's not that the board can't vote, it's that the board isn't remotely independent. And according to the WSJ A number of members of the board have hung around many late nights doing drugs with him.

And to be clear it's that that their doing drugs, it's that if you're close enough with someone to be regularly doing hard drugs with them you clearly aren't independent.