There have been rumors for quite some time that Mercedes has the best power unit for the upcoming 2026 regulation set. It's entirely possible that this is part of that picture.
"Sustained power output between 350 and 400 kilowatts" is also a bit interesting since that is basically right in line with what people expect out of the 2026 electrical component of the power unit.
The US was at war during the course of the Manhattan Project. This is not the case now.
Being the sole owner of the first AGI would probably give the US an edge against its peers, but as fair as foreign policy goes, not as much as being the only nuclear-capable country.
For the world as a whole and probably for the US itself, in absolute terms, an entirely open AGI accessible to all countries with the necessary resources could have such an impact in the global economy that everyone ends up better off in aggregate.
It really depends. Locally, factions like criminal associations and retired cops mafias (militias), who always have city councelors and mayors in their pockets, may retaliate if someone with an audience is being too annoying (see Marielle Franco's case).
Nationally, not all politicians enjoy any protection from the supreme court against critiscism, only the best connected ones and the supreme court itself. Recently, a former YouTuber who lost all his social accounts and had to self-exile to the US for some disrespectful comments against the supreme court was sentenced to 1.5 years in jail for calling the newest supreme court judge a "fatty".
Except for the supreme court itself, the average Brazilian can voice their concerns and speak up against corruption with very low chances of repercussions if they don't display wholly anti-democratic discourse, like wishing the military to execute a coup.
He merely observed that the extreme left has a lot more space in politics than the extreme right. Why is it that nazism is banned while we have so many literal proud self-admitted socialists and communists in this country who not only walk this soil completely unpunished but also form organized parties, get elected, get appointed to the supreme court? The judge who held him guilty for calling him a "fatty" is the perfect example of one.
Anti-nazism laws are unconstitutional. Constitution says that "any and all" censorship of political nature is prohibited. Nazism is a political party. Therefore censorship of nazism is prohibited. It's that simple.
So why is it that nazism is literal thought crime while socialism and communism, far more harmful ideologies, are allowed to flourish with complete impunity? If they're gonna ban nazis, I demand that they also ban communists and socialists. It should be a literal thought crime to advocate for anything related to that nonsense. And any form of socialist organization should get all involved sent straight to jail.
That's the point that was made. Allowing that crap while simultaneously banning nazism is a contradiction. His only "crime" here was trying to resolve the contradiction by arguing that nazis should be allowed to organize. That's not what we really want. What we actually want is these socialists and communists in jail.
> Anti-nazism laws are unconstitutional. Constitution says that "any and all" censorship of political nature is prohibited. Nazism is a political party. Therefore censorship of nazism is prohibited. It's that simple.
There’s no censorship. You are allowed to say your mind and nobody can prevent you from doing it. Freedom to do something doesn’t imply impunity for committing crimes in the process of expressing your political beliefs.
> the extreme left
Brazil had a far-right president for four years. There’s zero far-left in mainstream politics in Brazil, unless you slide the Overton window so far to the right social democrats (such as PT) looks far-left and Bolsonaro looks like a moderate right-winger.
> Freedom to do something doesn’t imply impunity for committing crimes in the process of expressing your political beliefs.
Those two statements contradict each other. One can't criminalize political beliefs and simultaneously claim that there is no censorship of political beliefs.
The man had his social media presence blocked for his wrongthink. That is censorship.
> There’s zero far-left in mainstream politics in Brazil
There must be dozens of political parties with communism and socialism right in the name. Not social-democracy, not social-anything. Straight up socialist and communist parties. Why is this allowed?
And it's not just the names either, as is often claimed. They are very much socialists in their proposals and public policies. Why are these ideas allowed to spread and proliferate?
No. Censorship is preventing you from saying something. Arresting you for committing a crime is not censorship. Germany is a democracy where you’ll land in jail for defending the creation of a nazi party. Is that censorship?
> with communism and socialism right in the name.
Is anyone actually proposing the abolition of private property and the seizure of the means of production by the proletariat?
> Censorship is preventing you from saying something.
That's exactly what happened. His channel was blocked by order of a judge. Censorship.
> Arresting you for committing a crime is not censorship.
Criminalizing any form of political idea absolutely is political censorship. The whole purpose of heavily punishing crimes is to prevent said crimes from occurring. Punishing certain political positions is therefore equivalent to preventing said political positions from being expressed.
If we're gonna stoop to this tyranny, then I'm gonna start enumerating a whole slew of equally harmful or even worse ideas for the tyrant's perusal. Let's start with the complete erasure of socialism and communism and everything related to it, and the incarceration of every single subversive person involved with it.
Why censor nazis but not these communists? Makes absolutely no sense. If they censor nazis but refuse to censor these socialists whose dictatorial regimes have genocided their own populations, I'm gonna start drawing some very uncomfortable conclusions about the way the world works.
> Germany is a democracy where you’ll land in jail for defending the creation of a nazi party. Is that censorship?
I'm sure everybody feels righteous about banning nazis. The problem is that banning nazis is unconstitutional here in Brazil. Nazis are just a political party, the national-socialist worker's party, ironically. And in Brazil, any and all forms of political censorship is prohibited.
I have no idea what the german constitution says. Maybe it is constitutional there.
From a moral standpoint, though, I see no reason to believe it's not censorship. Plenty of consumer media depicting nazism needs to be "adapted" in order to be published in Germany. That's China tier protection against harmful ideas as far as I'm concerned. I certainly consider it to be censorship. I have no idea whether german law considers it so.
> Is anyone actually proposing the abolition of private property and the seizure of the means of production by the proletariat?
Lula has literally recorded himself saying the state should seize people's inheritances and then determine "what people need to survive" so that it can give them exactly that.
These guys are socialists and communists, there is absolutely no doubt about it. I have no idea why I have to prove this every single time. They're pretty proud of being what they are.
Fines are not enough because a large enough fine will kill a company, destroying lots of jobs and supply chains.
Why not dilute the shareholder pool by a serious amount? There's no need for a statization to formally happen, the government can sell the shares back over time without actually exercising control.
Also fire execs and ban them from holding office on publicly traded companies for the foreseeable future.
Seizing shares doesn't impact the cash flow of the company directly, thus shouldn't cause job losses, but shareholders (who should put pressure on executives and the board to act with prudence to avoid these kinds of disasters) are adequately punished.
This actually sounds like a workable idea, but the implementation would be extremely thorny (impact on covenants, governance, voting rights, non-listed companies, etc) and take forever to get done. It would also punish everyone equally, even though they clearly do not share equal blame.
You probably want, in addition to your proposal, executive stock-based compensation to be awarded in a different share class, used to finance penalties in such cases where the impact is deemed to be the result of gross negligence at the management level.
> but shareholders (who should put pressure on executives and the board to act with prudence to avoid these kinds of disasters) are adequately punished.
So if I own some Vanguard mutual fund as part of a retirement account, it’s now on me to put pressure on 500+ corporations?
Perhaps it’s on Vanguard to do so…but Vanguard isn’t going to just eat the cost of increased due diligence requirements. My fees will increase.
How does that increased due diligence even work? It’s not like I or Vanguard can see internal processes to verify that a company has adequate testing or backups or training to prevent cases like today’s failure.
When, on average, X number of those 500 companies in my mutual fund face this share seizure penalty per year…am I just supposed to eat the loss when those shares disappear? Does Vanguard start insuring against such losses? Who pays for that insurance in the end?
This doesn’t even really hurt the shareholders who are best placed to possibly pressure a company. This doesn’t hurt “billionaire executive who owns 40% of the outstanding shares”. I mean, sure, it will hurt that little part of their brain that keeps track of their monetary worth and just wants to see “huge number get huger”…but it doesn’t actually hurt them. It just hurts regular folks, as usual.
If you own a mutual fund, then you do not own shares of the 500 companies, rather you own shares of the mutual fund itself.
Consequently you don't put pressure on the 500 companies, you put pressure on the mutual fund and the mutual fund in turn puts pressure on the companies it invests in and exercises additional discretion in which companies it invests in.
>Perhaps it’s on Vanguard to do so…but Vanguard isn’t going to just eat the cost of increased due diligence requirements.
Yes they do, because mutual funds do compete with one another and a mutual fund that does the due diligence to avoid investing in companies that are held liable for these kinds of incidents will outperform the mutual funds that don't do this kind of due diligence.
> It’s not like I or Vanguard can see internal processes to verify that a company has adequate testing or backups or training to prevent cases like today’s failure.
I don't know specifically about Vanguard, but mutual funds in general do employ the services of firms like PwC, Deloitte, and KPMG to perform technical due diligence that assesses the target company's technology, product quality, development processes, and compliance with industry standards. VC firms like Sequoia Capital and Andressen Horowitz do their own technical due diligence.
Just perhaps the idea of sticking everyone's retirement funds into massive passive vehicles was a bad one and has an unhealthy effect on the market, as you illustrate here. It is the way of things now so I see your point and it would be harmful to people, but getting in this situation has seemingly removed what could be a natural lever of consequence. We can't really hold companies accountable lest all the "regular folks" that can't actively supervise what they're investing in become collateral damage.
Direct API access to the Central Bank's internal system is only given to participating banks. Your bank might make available a separate API through which you can generate temporary QR Codes with a value attached, for instance. This is very common. These QR codes aren't requests for payment in the strictest sense, because they aren't targeted at an user specifically: anyone that scans the QR code can pay.
To popularize the system, the central bank forbid the banks from charging for transactions in the first 12 months. That was very contentious because before we had a system called TED which allowed transactions only in business days and within a 1~24h window. Most (not all) banks charged a fixed fee of 1 to 15 BRL per transaction. This revenue source was cut all of a sudden.
Now, they allow banks to charge fees for businesses, if they wish. Some banks have fixed fees, some charge up to 1% per transaction (half the fee for debit card transactions in Brazil), sometimes also defining a ceiling (max 130 BRL fee per single transaction).
I don't understand what's the harm of having a releases page with a binary and its md5 hash, or how that keeps anyone from just compiling an unofficial binary themselves and adding malware to it.
Anyone not technical enough to compile a binary has to give up trying to use it or risk some unnoficially distributed executable .
But not on the official page, right? And there's nothing stopping someone from doing that now is there? I don't see how the original authors providing binaries is less secure than anything else.
This is so similar to what happens in Brazil with online retailers when they decide to ship something through the Brazilian Postal Company (Correios).
For me it's a gamble to order anything online because I live in a suburb that doesn't get postal service, and the parcel gets redirected to a neighbouring town instead of my own city's office. All private shipping companies deliver to my door, though.
