Sam Bankman-Fried's lawyers say he needs more Adderall to concentrate in court
hedgehog @ hedgehog @ttrpg.network Posts 1Comments 875Joined 2 yr. ago
hedgehog @ hedgehog @ttrpg.network
Posts
1
Comments
875
Joined
2 yr. ago
For anyone too annoyed with their site to read the article there:
Researchers at the University of Washington have now created MilliMobile, a tiny, self-driving robot powered only by surrounding light or radio waves. Equipped with a solar panel–like energy harvester and four wheels, MilliMobile is about the size of a penny, weighs as much as a raisin, and can move about the length of a bus (30 feet or 10 meters) in an hour, even on a cloudy day. The robot can drive on surfaces such as concrete or packed soil and carry nearly three times its own weight in equipment like a camera or sensors. It uses a light sensor to move automatically toward light sources so it can run indefinitely on harvested power.
The team tested MilliMobile, both indoors and outdoors, in environments such as parks, an indoor hydroponic farm, and an office. Even in very low light situations — for instance, powered only by the lights under a kitchen counter — the robots are still able to inch along, though much slower. Running continuously, even at that pace, opens new abilities for a swarm of robots deployed in areas where other sensors have trouble generating nuanced data.
“We took inspiration from ‘intermittent computing,’ which breaks complex programs into small steps, so a device with very limited power can work incrementally, as energy is available,” said co-lead author Kyle Johnson, a UW doctoral student in the Paul G. Allen School of Computer Science & Engineering. “With MilliMobile, we applied this concept to motion. We reduced the robot’s size and weight, so it takes only a small amount of energy to move. And, similar to an animal taking steps, our robot moves in discrete increments, using small pulses of energy to turn its wheels.”
These robots are also able to steer themselves, navigating with onboard sensors and tiny computing chips. To demonstrate this, the team programmed the robots to use their onboard light sensors to move towards a light source.
Researchers have outfitted MilliMobile with light, temperature, and humidity sensors as well as with Bluetooth, letting it transmit data over 650 feet (200 meters). In the future, they plan to add other sensors and improve data-sharing among swarms of these robots.
Reader mode is another option - it worked for me, at least. (On mobile with Adguard running.)
Is that really the point that you took away from my comment? Let me simplify it for you:
- The law cannot possibly have a positive effect. It cannot reduce deaths no matter how effective it is because there have been no deaths.
- The law will have an outsized negative effect. It prevents and delays access to tools that are used by businesses, schools, and hobbyists. That's not even accounting for the cost to review the background checks.
This bill was just introduced, there’s little detail yet on how this could be accomplished.
Did you follow the link and read the bill? It lays it all out.
1 Section 1. The general business law is amended by adding a new section
2 398-g to read as follows:
3 § 398-g. Sale of certain three-dimensional printers. 1. Any retailer
4 of a three-dimensional printer sold in this state which is capable of
5 printing a firearm, or any components of a firearm, is required and
6 authorized to request and receive criminal history information concern-
7 ing such purchaser from the division of criminal justice services in
8 accordance with the provisions of section eight hundred forty-five-b of
9 the executive law. Access to and the use of such information shall be
10 governed by the provisions of such section. The division of criminal
11 justice services is authorized to submit fingerprints to the federal
12 bureau of investigation for a national criminal history record check.
13 2. Within fifteen business days after receiving a request for criminal
14 history information pursuant to this section, the commissioner of the
15 division of criminal justice services shall review such criminal history
16 information and determine whether such purchaser has been convicted
17 anywhere of a felony or a serious offense or who is not the subject of
18 an outstanding warrant of arrest issued upon the alleged commission of a
19 felony or serious offense which would disqualify such individual from
20 being licensed to carry or possess a firearm under section 400.00 of the
21 penal law. Such commissioner shall promptly notify the seller of his or
22 her determination in this regard. No retailer shall sell any three-di-
23 mensional printer capable of printing a firearm unless the division of
NEXT PAGE IN PDF
1 criminal justice services provides written notification of the determi-
2 nation under this subdivision.
3 3. For purposes of this section, "three-dimensional printer" means a
4 computer or computer-driven machine or device capable of producing a
5 three-dimensional object from a digital model.
- Lines 3-9 - Any retailer of a 3d printer must request and receive a criminal background history for the purchaser from NY criminal justice services.
- Lines 13-22 - it will take up to 15 business days to review and provide a response.
Sure was, and that’s what I thought as well.
I’m not the person you replied to, but it’s an okay comparison. It’s not perfect - 3D printers are way less dangerous than cars - but it conveys the same point.
Like cars and unlike guns, 3D printers are tools. The federal government prevents a convicted felon from owning a gun, but not from driving; generally speaking, states only prohibit this if you were convicted of reckless driving or some other vehicle related offense.
Also, once I have a license I can walk into any car dealer and drive out with a car a couple hours later. This law has an up-to-15 day turn around for the background check and no means of attesting that you are licensed and permitted to purchase a 3D printer without waiting. That’s gonna be a pain for everyone who’s interested in a 3D printer. If my car is taken out of service and I need it to get to work, I can buy another. I don’t have to wait 15 days. If my business involves 3D printing and one of my printers breaks down and needs replaced, having to wait an extra 15 days for a replacement is ridiculous.
If the law said “Felons who were convicted of crimes involving 3D printers may not purchase or own a 3D printer” then that would be more appropriate and closer to how cars are handled.
IMO a more apt comparison would be to other consumer grade tools, like drills, circular saws, etc.. Just because I can theoretically make something dangerous with such a tool doesn’t mean the tool needs to be restricted.
Afaik NY doesn’t prohibit felons from buying an “80 percent” Glock frame, a Glock slide, and a Dremel, nor does it prevent them from buying a CNC that can mill a full metal gun. (NJ prohibits the first of those (for everyone) and it’s illegal there to construct a gun at home if you aren’t legally permitted to own one, but that’s harder to enforce.) Either of those legal purchase sets enable you to create a gun at home that’s a much more effective firearm than can be 3D printed. Prohibiting them from buying a 3D printer (when technically even an Ender 3 can print a “gun”) is just silly.
Some stats: in the USA, there were:
- 1.2 guns per capita in 2017.
- 333 million residents in 2022
- estimating 400 million guns in 2022
- 20k deaths by gun violence in 2022 (and slightly more deaths by suicide involving a gun)
- 422k or so 3d printers in the US (according to this site in 2020); this number is probably triple or more now, though
- 0 people killed with guns verified to have been created by 3d printers ever in the US (I found one unverified account)
- 264 million registered vehicles in 2015
- 35,485 deaths due to motor vehicle collisions in 2015
this works out to:
- 1 homicide per 20k guns in 2022
- 2.7 deaths per 20k cars in 2015
- 0 deaths per 20k 3D printers in every year
Not quite. It’s a contraction of “would cant,” which is a misspelling of “wood cant,” the language of the trees.
Note that the AI discussed in the article wasn’t translating anything. It was determining what was written in the original language by using scans of sections of the scroll, taking into account patterns (the “crackle”), differences in texture, etc., that hadn’t been leveraged in this way before.
Otherwise you’re spot on - it was trained on other similar scans that exhibited those patterns where the written text was already known.
The context of this is games where nat 1s are auto fails on skill checks, though. If your argument isn’t ultimately in defense of that, too, then I don’t have any objections to your argument (other than that it isn’t topically relevant). My objections are exclusively to the idea of not asking someone to roll because they would succeed on a 1 in a game where Nat 1s are auto-fails.
In a game where Nat 1s aren’t auto fails, then I don’t have any objections. Mechanically, both approaches - whether you do or don’t ask, and how you track to determine when to not ask - are identical, so choose the approach that makes the most sense for you, your players and your collective play styles.
What portion of the
- 18 skills
- 6 saves + AC
- 30+ tools
do you list for every character on your GM screen? Are you running games with 6+ players? And what other value does that provide? Do you also account for possible bonuses, some of which can be activated as reactions? Do you update it when values change mid-session (like if a player changes shape, enters or leaves a paladin’s aura, or attunes-deattunes an item that boosts a stat)? Because if so, that sounds like a lot of bookkeeping for very little value to me, and if not, then there’s even less value. If it’s baked into your VTT then sure, but I don’t think most groups playing in person use a VTT at the table.
What are you listing on your main screen? I’d think that all of these things would be more important than duplicating the info PCs themselves have: having a copy of the map (with everything visible or with LOS / fog of war / lighting applied to the selected PC/NPC/monster), initiative (which could be swapped out for 1-2 PC stats outside of combat), players’ passive values, everyone’s HP + status effects, notes on NPC and monster motivations, reminders (e.g., tell the Fighter they find a note from an NPC in their backpack when they say they’re getting something or during downtime), notes related to what you actually have planned for the session, etc..
Noticing that the Rogue has been doing very well on thieves tools checks and thus not making them roll to pick a lock is a clear example of the possible ways DM bias can occur, since another character (let’s say a Wizard with History expertise) with a skill bonus that’s just as high that hasn’t come up as much won’t get that same benefit. On the other hand, if you don’t have auto crit fails on 1s, then you can just let the Rogue succeed without treating the Wizard unfairly - yes, they have to roll, but there’s no chance of them failing that the Rogue doesn’t have.
That all said, if you have auto crit fails on 1s, why are you not asking for rolls all the time, anyway? Seems inconsistent, as not asking for a roll from someone who will succeed on a 1 is the same (in terms of possible outcomes) as allowing a roll but waiving the chance of an automatic failure on a nat 1. Why not just get rid of that chance in all cases?
Are injury tables for hitting 0 HP are a common house rule? I can’t even remember the last time I read about a group using one, and I was subbed to multiple game tales groups on Reddit (including RPG Horror Stories).
If you’re trying to run a gritty game, I can understand wanting a player hitting 0 to have an impact. I don’t think injury tables work otherwise. And I don’t personally think 5e is a great system for gritty games overall. The rules for Lingering Injuries are in the DMG, though, so it’s not always even a house rule.
Oh cool! That makes sense and addresses my concerns. I really like the sound of that whole system, overall.
Is what you described a house rule or RAW in PF2E?
That’s pretty close to the way I’ve seen it done when the DM wants a 1 to be a special number and I didn’t hate it.
A slight alteration of that is to have a successful 1 result in a complication - some of which would result in the attempted task becoming impossible or irrelevant. Maybe you pick the lock but the door is stuck or barred, or maybe you’re halfway through picking the lock when an ogre slams into it, shattering it into little more than splinters. Or you pick the lock flawlessly, but the thing you were after is missing because it was already stolen. It’s crucial that it’s something that’s out of your control with regard to the task you were performing, not that you slipped up in some way to cause the failure. It’s not perfect, but I personally like it a lot more than other implementations.
The DM doesn’t necessarily have your modifiers memorized and asking what they are every time slows down play. The DM also likely doesn’t want to share the DC. The easiest fair solution is to always ask for a roll (assuming it’s possible, generically, to succeed or fail) and to then consider passes to be passes. If you only avoid asking for a roll when you know the player will make it, then you’re likely to be biased toward the players whose characters you’re more familiar with.
So a 1 should always be a fail.
RAW this is not the case. From the DMG:
Rolling a 20 or a 1 on an ability check or a saving throw doesn't normally have any special effect. However, you can choose to take such an exceptional roll into account when adjudicating the outcome. It's up to you to determine how this manifests in the game.
My experience with having nat 1s being auto fails and is that this results in characters who are “erratically … tragically incompetent” as well as taking away player agency (Nick Brown on rpg.stackechange explained this well). Maybe you and your players like a game like that, but I certainly don’t.
Yep, that’s solid! If they got rid of the bit that the designer, Mark, clarified in the comments (“If your nat 20 isn't a critical success, it is still a success, and if your nat 1 isn't a critical failure, it is still a failure”) then I’d be a fan. Even with that I still appreciate the extra flexibility that it adds to the design space.
It’s the second shittiest common house rule, assuming you mean that if someone with a +15 bonus rolls a nat 1 on a DC 5 check, they automatically fail (possibly with a worse effect than if someone with a -1 rolled a 2).
On the other hand, there are other ways to have crit fails on skill checks that are much more palatable, like:
- having a slightly worse effect when someone rolls a nat 1 and would have failed anyway
- having a worse effect when someone’s total is 1 or lower
- having a worse effect when rolls are failed by certain thresholds, like by 10 or more (potentially, but not necessarily, only when the roll was a nat 1)
(The worst common house rule, btw, is crit miss tables for additional effects beyond an automatic miss when you roll a 1 on an attack roll.)
Being bigger and more powerful doesn’t mean you aren’t a bully. Israel being more powerful and more palatable doesn’t mean they aren’t terrorists. The US is a bad example if you’re trying to say Israel was in the right, because the US certainly wasn’t.
Correct, but that doesn’t change the fact that “Passkeys can’t be phished” is not true.
Accessible keys are a security risk, regardless of how you feel about it. If a key is accessible on the system then any exploit with elevated read permissions can steal the entire key store. By leveraging hardware features that let you add and use a key but prevent reading it, you mitigate that risk. There’s a reason that on Yubikeys, secrets are write-only.
Bitwarden, 1Password, and other companies who build password managers are able to operate with higher expectations of their users. Their users opted into using a flexible, secure tool, and as such, they can provide riskier options to their customers. They know that providing a TOTP solution in their application doesn’t force their customers to use it when doing so would be outside their risk tolerance.
That said, every password manager that I know of - Apple’s, Google’s, Microsoft’s, Firefox’s, as well as dedicated password managers - has an export tool. But this doesn’t mean that all of those providers value having flexibility. I’d argue that in many cases it just means that they recognize that a password alone isn’t trusted enough to warrant concealing it. Given that you have to know the password to enter it, there’s much less value in concealing it from the end user. Since passkeys don’t work that way and do have that value, it makes sense for providers, if they are opting to prioritize security, would choose a less-flexible solution that most of their users don’t care about.
If the big providers did offer a more flexible alternative, enabling exports, to advanced users, those users would necessarily have reduced security and they would have to opt into that ahead of time, since later the secrets would be inaccessible (theoretically - depending on how the syncing is implemented it might be feasible to intercept them. My assumption, since syncing is within a given ecosystem only, is that when synced they are encrypted with a public key that only their secure hardware can decrypt). Also, having such an option would require a different code pathway when interacting with the secrets store, which would mean more potential code that could have bugs.
Having a seamless way to migrate away is itself a security risk, since that method could be used by attackers to compromise the key store. The migration path for any of the major players (Apple, Google, Microsoft, Yubikey) involves logging into each site you used a passkey with, adding a new one from your new passkey store, then revoking the old passkey.
Password managers that store Passkeys may handle this differently, though, and are your best bet if you want migration flexibility.
While he’s in the prison’s custody, it’s their responsibility to provide him with his prescribed medication, and the judge knows that they haven’t been doing so. The judge has been presented with a statement from the defendant’s HCP stating that he “will be severely negatively impacted in his ability to assist in his own defense,” but the judge is ignoring this because he thinks Bankman-Fried “seems fine.” That doesn’t piss you off? You’re lucky if you’ve never had to experience someone in a position of authority over you saying that you’re obviously fine when you know you’re not.
He has a prescription for 3-4x 10mg tablets per day. He has not been receiving that.
He also has a prescription for Ensam that he has not been consistently receiving. Ensam interacts with Adderall, and getting both of them inconsistently could have even more dramatic effects. I’m not sure how going off Ensam compares to other anti-depressants but many of them can have pretty rough side effects.
Per the CNBC article, he did get an updated prescription for XR Adderall, but - presumably because that has to go through the prison system - the judge indicated that won’t be available until Thursday. The judge refused to delay proceedings because he hadn’t gotten an updated medical opinion on the matter:
I get the impression that he’s saying “I don’t care what your psychiatrist thinks. You’re not fidgeting or sobbing, so obviously your ADHD and depression aren’t big enough issues to delay the trial.”
Given that the medical opinion that Kaplan already received stated that it was important that Bankman-Fried receive his medication as prescribed, why does Kaplan need an update? Nothing has changed. This is the letter he received back in mid-August:
I don’t want this to be declared a mistrial or be appealed, but I firmly believe that not being given your prescription medication when you’re in court, despite your doctor having told the judge a month and a half ago that it was necessary, should be grounds for both.