ejstronge (u/ejstronge)

ejstronge commented on U.S. government takes 10% stake in Intel cnbc.com/2025/08/22/intel... · Posted by u/givemeethekeys

righthand · 3 days ago

Trying to ignore the politicking on this so it can be clear on what exactly is “happening”.

As far as I understand, all Trump did was alter Biden admin’s original plan. Trump swapped a 10% stake in Intel for Biden’s profit sharing for participating in the grants[0] (anyone who participates in the CHIPS Act gets this deal currently, I guess Intel is renegotiating). Not necessarily better or worse because Intel is a long ways away from any sort of gain that would make a difference.

If you feel conflicted to think this is a good or bad move, you’re right where Trump wants you. Sit down and do the napkin math, you may find the deal irrelevant or numbers similar. In the end we won’t know for a decade the result. The move is meaningless financially but generates headlines and doesn’t do anything to advance the actual foundries.

It’s almost distracting…

[0] “Biden to require chips companies winning subsidies to share excess profits“ >> https://www.reuters.com/technology/us-require-companies-winn...

ejstronge · 3 days ago

First, this is different because this was not what was agreed when Intel sought the grant. So I reserve the right to see as ‘bad’ a coercive action.

Second, from your article:

‘ Commerce expects "upside sharing will only be material in instances where the project significantly exceeds its projected cash flows or returns, and will not exceed 75% of the recipient’s direct funding award." 'NOT A FREE HANDOUT'

Democratic Senator Jack Reed praised the profit sharing plan, saying chips funding is "not a free handout for multi-billion dollar tech companies.... There is no downside for companies that participate because they only have to share a portion of future profits if they do exceedingly well."’

Clearly, there was a cap on repayments, but there is not one on giving away equity

ejstronge commented on OpenIPC: Open IP Camera Firmware openipc.org/à... · Posted by u/zakki

miiiiiike · 21 days ago

Whenever I look into IP cameras I close the tabs because it feels like I walked into a store brand cereal aisle where all the boxes are exclaiming “Now with fewer razor blades!” or “Only half the reported cases of salmonella than similar store brands!”

What’s a good brand for IP cameras? What’s the best, in terms of open source support and reliability?

I need a mix of PoE indoor and outdoor cameras. 15 outdoor/10 indoor. Cost isn't a factor, I need something reliable.

ejstronge · 21 days ago

There's no reason to re-invent the wheel - ipcamtalk has a comprehensive set of explanatory posts. Don't buy Reolink, avoid Amcrest - Loryta (rebranded Dahua) and Hikvision are the strongest, but there are other strong options, especially on the refurbished commercial camera front.

ejstronge commented on Mary had schizophrenia, then suddenly didn't newyorker.com/magazine/20... · Posted by u/fortran77

LoganDark · a month ago

I highly doubt there'll ever be research in this area, but I'm very curious about whether it'll ever be possible to induce schizophrenia for a time, similar to how psychedelics or dissociatives can induce altered mind states.

ejstronge · a month ago

> I highly doubt there'll ever be research in this area, but I'm very curious about whether it'll ever be possible to induce schizophrenia for a time, similar to how psychedelics or dissociatives can induce altered mind states.

It is not possible, by definition; here’s a portion of the DSM 5 definition of schizophrenia:

“ The disturbance is not attributable to the physiological effects of a substance (e.g., a drug of abuse, a medication) or another medical condition”

Hard to find a publicly accessible DSM link, but here is an excerpt

https://floridabhcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Pages...

ejstronge commented on Facebook is asking to use Meta AI on photos you haven’t yet shared theverge.com/meta/694685/... · Posted by u/pier25

ipsum2 · 2 months ago

I imagine many people will react only to the headline and not read the article, but:

"Meta tells The Verge that, for now, it’s not training on your unpublished photos with this new feature. “[The Verge’s headline] implies we are currently training our AI models with these photos, which we aren’t. This test doesn’t use people’s photos to improve or train our AI models,”

As someone who is familiar with the ML space, it seems unlikely that the addition of private photos will significantly improve models, as you have mentioned.

ejstronge · 2 months ago

> I imagine many people will react only to the headline and not read the article [...]

I saw this line in the article: "Meta tells The Verge that it’s not currently training its AI models on those photos, but it would not answer our questions about whether it might do so in future, or what rights it will hold over your camera roll images."

It would seem important to share this with people who may 'not read the article'

ejstronge commented on US Supreme Court limits federal judges' power to block Trump orders theguardian.com/us-news/2... · Posted by u/leotravis10

cellis · 2 months ago

If you care to read some cases, this link is informative https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2020-01-23/debates/B8A.... You don’t have to be on “soil” to break these laws. The US certainly extradites loads of people from other countries who still reside there and only broke laws either “online” or through transactions involving the US

ejstronge · 2 months ago

> The US certainly extradites loads of people from other countries who still reside there and only broke laws either “online” or through transactions involving the US

This further weakens the dishonest posture that tourists are not subject to US law

ejstronge commented on US Supreme Court limits federal judges' power to block Trump orders theguardian.com/us-news/2... · Posted by u/leotravis10

JacobGoodson · 2 months ago

trump estimation so far: 81-103 biden estimation: 14-28

You are incorrect.

ejstronge · 2 months ago

>trump estimation so far: 81-103 biden estimation: 14-28 >You are incorrect.

You are clearly partisan. The GP says nothing about the number, but is instead the impact.

You should also consider normalizing the number of injunctions to the number of executive orders per term.

ejstronge commented on US Supreme Court limits federal judges' power to block Trump orders theguardian.com/us-news/2... · Posted by u/leotravis10

Amezarak · 2 months ago

The author of the clause didn't think it applied to the children of aliens, so it doesn't seem crazy to me.

> Howard said that the clause "is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States."[30] He added that citizenship "will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons"[30]—a comment which would later raise questions as to whether Congress had originally intended that U.S.-born children of foreign parents were to be included as citizens.[32]

ejstronge · 2 months ago

It’s curious you don’t link to a source even though you pasted something that contains references - I suspect you know that you are misinterpreting this willfully.

> The author of the clause didn't think it applied to the children of aliens, so it doesn't seem crazy to me. >> Howard said that the clause "is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States."[30] He added that citizenship "will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons"[30]—a comment which would later raise questions as to whether Congress had originally intended that U.S.-born children of foreign parents were to be included as citizens.[32]

ejstronge commented on US Supreme Court limits federal judges' power to block Trump orders theguardian.com/us-news/2... · Posted by u/leotravis10

indil · 2 months ago

Your news sources have woefully misinformed you. Trump's argument is that it's not enough to be born here, you have to also be a charge of the country:

"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

Note the "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". Trump's argument is that people born in America to tourist parents here for a few weeks (for example) aren't subject to the jurisdiction of America. It's a valid argument to make, even if you come down on a different side. Even the author of the 14th amendment said that was the point of that clause. Even in logical terms it makes sense: You can't just let anyone in to give birth and then collect benefits; it's unsustainable.

However, this case wasn't about citizenship. It was about the broader issue of lower courts issuing restraining orders outside their jurisdictions. It's a recipe for chaos. There's a reason why there are multiple jurisdictions, and courts are limited to their jurisdictions. What happens when two lower courts issue conflicting nationwide orders? The only court in the US that has jurisdiction over the entire country is the Supreme Court. This was a losing battle.

There's a right way and a wrong way to go about addressing problems. Court cases are sometimes more about the core issues involved than the concrete circumstances. Sure, birthright citizenship was the reason for the suit, but the core issue was judicial overreach. Don't get mad because the way your side was "winning" was by cheating, and they were stopped. Try having an actual good argument, and doing things the right way by arguing the actual case in a court.

ejstronge · 2 months ago

> tourist parents here for a few weeks (for example) aren't subject to the jurisdiction of America. It's a valid argument to make, even if you come down on a different side

This ‘jurisdiction’ claim essentially only applied to people who had a diplomatic status while in the US. A traveler from Canada has no special right against being prosecuted (just like you would not were you to go to, say Britain).

A governmental figure from Canada would have protections - we would need to interact with another sovereign to hold them accountable.

This really has nothing to do with tourism, outside deceitful assertions on television.

Regarding Britain, here’s an example of someone not being subject to the jurisdiction of a country after committing a serious crime: https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/harry-dunn-uk-anne-sacoolas...

I hope this clarifies your misunderstanding about the meaning of jurisdiction.

ejstronge commented on AlphaGenome: AI for better understanding the genome deepmind.google/discover/... · Posted by u/i_love_limes

nextos · 2 months ago

Yes, but it's not dramatically different from what is out there already.

There is a concerning gap between prediction and causality. In problems, like this one, where lots of variables are highly correlated, prediction methods that only have an implicit notion of causality don't perform well.

Right now, SOTA seems to use huge population data to infer causality within each linkage block of interest in the genome. These types of methods are quite close to Pearl's notion of causal graphs.

ejstronge · 2 months ago

> SOTA seems to use huge population data to infer causality within each linkage block of interest in the genome.

This has existed for at least a decade, maybe two.

> There is a concerning gap between prediction and causality.

Which can be bridged with protein prediction (alphafold) and non-coding regulatory predictions (alphagenome) amongst all the other tools that exist.

What is it that does not exist that you "found it disappointing that they ignored"?