Malle's recent activity
-
Comment on Florida is the first state to ban lab grown meat - Ron DeSantis in ~food
-
Comment on Canada bet big on immigration. Now it’s hitting the brakes. in ~misc
Malle Link ParentNot commenting on the wider discussion, only on this part: I don't think this is true? From your link: They are saying the total amount of foreign-born residents is higher than any other country,...Not commenting on the wider discussion, only on this part:
America hosts the largest percentage of foreign born residents in the whole world
I don't think this is true? From your link:
The United States is home to more foreign-born residents than any other country in the world. In 2021, immigrants composed almost 14 percent of the U.S. population.
They are saying the total amount of foreign-born residents is higher than any other country, but that does not mean that the percentage is the highest.
To provide a counterexample, according to Statistics Sweden (Statistiska Centralbyrån; the Swedish government agency responsible for population statistics and such), in 2023 the population of Sweden consisted of 10 551 707 people, of which 2 170 627 are foreign-born, amounting to approximately 20.6%.
While I can't find data specifically for 2021, the corresponding values in 2020 were 10 379 295 total population, of which 2 046 731 were foreign-born, approximately 19.7%. Data for this is available here from Statistics Sweden, under the header "Foreign born, citizenship and foreign/Swedish background"
-
Comment on It's not just TikTok. ByteDance has a variety of apps that could also be banned. in ~tech
Malle Link ParentMy earlier reply was my own simplified rendition of the bill, to avoid the legalese so to speak. The bill is definitely more detailed on the topic. I would assume that the founders, and Chinese...My earlier reply was my own simplified rendition of the bill, to avoid the legalese so to speak. The bill is definitely more detailed on the topic. I would assume that the founders, and Chinese investors and employees very likely fall into the category.
(1) CONTROLLED BY A FOREIGN ADVERSARY.—The term “controlled by a foreign adversary” means, with respect to a covered company or other entity, that such company or other entity is—
(A) a foreign person that is domiciled in, is headquartered in, has its principal place of business in, or is organized under the laws of a foreign adversary country;
(B) an entity with respect to which a foreign person or combination of foreign persons described in subparagraph (A) directly or indirectly own at least a 20 percent stake; or
(C) a person subject to the direction or control of a foreign person or entity described in subparagraph (A) or (B).
I simplified point A to "under the purview of", which I think is a fair description when trying to not go too deep into the details. In either case, there are other simplifications I have done in my earlier descriptions as well. Some of them may be entirely wrong. For instance, I don't know if there's case law or precedent which affects how a law is generally interpreted. That is to say, don't take it as fact as much as my attempt at trying to talk about it in very general terms.
-
Comment on It's not just TikTok. ByteDance has a variety of apps that could also be banned. in ~tech
Malle Link ParentI'm not a lawyer, nor am I from the US. For reference, H.R. 7521 - Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act can be read on congress.gov. What follows is my...I'm not a lawyer, nor am I from the US. For reference, H.R. 7521 - Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act can be read on congress.gov. What follows is my summarized, simplified, understanding of it.
My tl;dr is this:
social media applications belonging to a company where at least 20% of the stake is held by North Korea, China, Russia, Iran (or people or companies they directly or indirectly hold influence over) fall within the scope of this bill. For such companies, applications which have at least a million active users may be targeted. If the president determines that such an application is a significant threat to national security, the president can inform the public and Congress and about their determination and an acceptable process of how stake of the application can be divested to resolve the situation. If the situation is not resolved within 180 days of the determination, providing the application within the US becomes illegal.
The slightly longer version:
In essence, the bill makes it so that any given company will fall into one of four categories:
- Non-covered company
- Covered company not "controlled by a foreign adversary"
- Covered company "controlled by a foreign adversary" but not determined by the president to be a significant threat to national security
- Covered company "controlled by a foreign adversary" and determined unilaterally by the president to be a threat to national security
The bill makes it illegal to provide within the US applications by companies in the last category. This includes distribution, maintenance, updates, and source code. When I say application here, the bill generally states "a website, desktop application, mobile application, or augmented or immersive technology application".
A company is a "covered company" if it runs an application where users can create accounts to partake in media (view text, images, video, etc.) and where some of that media is user-generated. The only exception is applications with the primary purpose of allowing "users to post product reviews, business reviews, or travel information and reviews". It also needs to have at least a million monthly active users.
A company is "controlled by a foreign adversary" if at least 20% of it's stake is owned by people directly or indirectly under the purview of a foreign adversary country. Specifically, that's North Korea, China, Russia, and Iran (defined in section 4872(d)(2) of title 10, United States Code).
The president need only inform the public and congress about the decision, including providing some reasoning as to the national security threat, and what the company could divest to resolve the situation.
Finally, ByteDance Ltd., TikTok, and any shenanigan-symbolic-transfer-of-control owner are basically defined to be in the last category, regardless of any other circumstances.
-
Comment on Rooftop solar panels are flooding California’s grid. That’s a problem. in ~enviro
Malle Link ParentThe part my intuition objects to is specifically the section of your reply which I quoted, regarding describing the regions as unusual. That's why I quoted it, to provide context of what I was...The part my intuition objects to is specifically the section of your reply which I quoted, regarding describing the regions as unusual. That's why I quoted it, to provide context of what I was commenting on.
A situation that leads to 80% power loss over several days on a country wide basis, particularly in winter months in colder climates, certainly seems a significant impact to me and something a microgrid would find hard to just "pull in" from outside sources (unless that is a very large grid). Finding supporting data that it happens on a near enough yearly basis with events lasting several days in countries around the north and Baltic sea makes me consider these events as not that unusual, but that is definitely a matter of opinion. Admittedly, for the limited amount of time I spent looking for data I didn't find any summary for other regions, so while I doubt it, it could very well be basically unheard of in the rest of the world.
That is to say, to me it seems as if dismissing the low-solar low-wind events as unusual isn't helpful. We should try to quantify it in different regions and dimension our systems to account for it. This includes diversification of renewable power sources to reduce intermittent power loss, as well as energy storage and transfer capacity to manage the remaining risk.
-
Comment on Rooftop solar panels are flooding California’s grid. That’s a problem. in ~enviro
Malle Link ParentBroadly speaking I agree with your conclusion, at least to the extent that it should be seriously considered as a possible approach. I am definitely not up-to-date enough with the state of the...Broadly speaking I agree with your conclusion, at least to the extent that it should be seriously considered as a possible approach. I am definitely not up-to-date enough with the state of the tech to contribute much to any informed discussion here. My comment was made in good faith, objecting specifically to the quoted section, as my experience is that I seem to hear reports of it most winters. My question wasn't rhetorical, because I honestly don't know the answer to it.
-
Comment on Rooftop solar panels are flooding California’s grid. That’s a problem. in ~enviro
Malle Link ParentWhat do you count as a long time, and how much must production fall for it to be problematic? You'll find some data on frequencies of these type of events for north and baltic sea countries in Li...Also, it really is a pretty unusual region that gets neither sun nor wind for long periods of time.
What do you count as a long time, and how much must production fall for it to be problematic? You'll find some data on frequencies of these type of events for north and baltic sea countries in Li et al. I have not had time to even skim it properly, but figure 3 on page 5 illustrates frequency of events for Germany, Norway, and the UK, based on capacity factor and duration of event in days.
Events lasting 3+ days at 20% or less capacity of solar PV and wind happened on average every few years in each of them (somewhere between 0.2 and 1 occurrence per year).
-
Comment on European Commission approves creation of an environmental zone in the city centre of Stockholm, where petrol and diesel cars will be banned entirely from 2025 in ~transport
Malle Link ParentWhat fortune then that this is not the strawman of immediately banning all fossil fuels in our modern world. What fortune that it is also not the what-aboutism of saying "other things use fossil...What fortune then that this is not the strawman of immediately banning all fossil fuels in our modern world. What fortune that it is also not the what-aboutism of saying "other things use fossil fuels so we should do nothing about cars". What fortune that it is in fact only a small step in an inevitably necessary transition for a sustainable future. A small step which you seem to argue is both too little and too much at the same time.
Its what we have and what works.
I think you will find substantial opposition to the blanket statement that it "works", given the effects of the emissions.
-
Comment on European Commission approves creation of an environmental zone in the city centre of Stockholm, where petrol and diesel cars will be banned entirely from 2025 in ~transport
Malle Link ParentTire type restrictions also include bans against studded tires on certain roads to reduce particulates, which have a measurable harmful effect on humans, just as other emissions do. It is also...Those are safety restrictions, not ideological restrictions
If it really only takes 10 minutes to walk across this entire area then it must be quite small. Which means that banning gas vehicles is not going to make ANY difference to the environment
Tire type restrictions also include bans against studded tires on certain roads to reduce particulates, which have a measurable harmful effect on humans, just as other emissions do.
It is also likely going to make a small but measurable difference in the specific area. Air pollution like carbon monoxide is higher near roads, presumably because of internal combustion engines. Remove or relocate those, and air pollution in the area is likely to be reduced.
Widening the zone will likely increase the effects, and can be done as more people have both the knowledge that such restrictions are coming and the time to phase over to non-ICE vehicles, and in conjunction with ensuring public transit is sufficiently available.
If I despise anything its people who use their fanaticism to force their values on others - that goes for religious zealots, multi level marketers, political activists and climate activists who push EVs as a panacea by forcing their choice on others.
Does this include people who champion the right to use fossil fuel cars and force others to live with the emissions?
-
Comment on European Commission approves creation of an environmental zone in the city centre of Stockholm, where petrol and diesel cars will be banned entirely from 2025 in ~transport
Malle Link ParentI would say it isn't categorically more unfair than any other restriction on car compliance. If you drive a car, it must have safety belts, and working lights, and the right type of tires for the...I would say it isn't categorically more unfair than any other restriction on car compliance. If you drive a car, it must have safety belts, and working lights, and the right type of tires for the road conditions, and so on.
Admittedly, it is fair to say that it is more expensive (if even feasible) to retrofit a car to be electric, but that is more an argument to have a slow phase-out, which I think this regulation can be described as. For context, it is about a 10 minute walk diagonally across the area according to google maps.
I think it is also extremely unfair to characterize it as you being "banished" from part of the city. You are allowed in it, just not your non-compliant car. If you cannot afford a car which is allowed to drive within this limited area, there is public transport available. I'm counting at least 7 sets of stops in or around it.
-
Comment on European Commission approves creation of an environmental zone in the city centre of Stockholm, where petrol and diesel cars will be banned entirely from 2025 in ~transport
Malle Link ParentAnd if it had been a total ban of all petrol, diesel, and hybrid cars in the entirety of Stockholm, it would be decried as extremely unreasonable, too much of a change, and leaving people who rely...And if it had been a total ban of all petrol, diesel, and hybrid cars in the entirety of Stockholm, it would be decried as extremely unreasonable, too much of a change, and leaving people who rely on their cars unable to use them at all, destroying their livelihood.
It may be less than what is necessary from an environmental perspective, but at least it's a start of a ban, and could be used both to expand the zone in Stockholm over time, and as a precedent to implement similar bans in other cities or even the country as a whole.
After all, presuming the article is truthful and accurate
As of 31 December, Stockholm will be the first city in the world to ban petrol and diesel cars from a part of the city
-
Comment on For those involved / interested in Web3, what do you make of the near and long term future for it? in ~tech
Malle Link ParentI agree with you in general about the lack of recourse, but I think that's also central to the point of discussing the different viewpoints or usage of "ownership" here. Specifically, it appears...I agree with you in general about the lack of recourse, but I think that's also central to the point of discussing the different viewpoints or usage of "ownership" here.
Specifically, it appears to me that people in general would agree with a statement like "I should be able to keep owning what I own", the difference is in their opinion on how to achieve that.
One path is what we generally have, a system of intangible rights, i.e. de jure ownership, set up so that it can forcefully change the de facto ownership to align the situation de jure and de facto. The advantage is that a victim of theft, scams, or frauds can more easily be made whole, which I think most people agree is a positive.
The risk here at least tends to be that such power cuts two ways, and it could be misused against you. Think for instance scams where people fraudulently claim they haven't received what they ordered and a payment processor or shopping site reverses the charge.
In other words, this approach is stronger against someone fraudulently gaining de facto ownership, but weaker against someone fraudulently claiming de jure ownership.
The other path then is to make it so that no external force has the ability to change the de facto owner, only the de facto owner themselves. You generally lose the ability to recover stolen value, but you also ensure that the de jure enforcement cannot be unjustly used against you.
In other words, this approach is stronger against someone fraudulently claiming de jure ownership, but weaker against someone fraudulently gaining de facto ownership.
I think this difference is at least part of what GoingMerry was getting at, and that it is a contributing reason to why people misunderstand each other when talking about ownership.
It comes down to [de facto and de jure] ownership. Everything you own is only [de facto] yours because someone says it’s [de jure] yours. The government, a private company, the bank, etc. What if you didn’t have to have these intermediaries? How would that change things?
(Text in brackets above are editorial clarifications according to my understanding.)
In other words, what if, for better or for worse, you were in total control of what you de facto own? What could we build on such a system? Are there benefits or opportunities we haven't considered or discovered?
Sidenotes:
I don't think I've explicitly defined that what is on the chain is the de jure state. De jure state will be defined by legal systems on how to treat these things, and you may very well have de jure ownership of an amount of cryptocurrency whether or not the legal system is able to enforce that if it's stolen.
After all, I'm pretty sure that fraudulently getting someone's cryptocurrency is still illegal and de jure ownership does not change, it's just that if you can prove it you might rather be compensated with something of equal value according to the legal system, such as national currency if the crypto cannot be seized and returned.
I would also like to make it clear that I am not arguing for or against the specific use of either of these paths here, only trying to build my own understanding of these things.
-
Comment on For those involved / interested in Web3, what do you make of the near and long term future for it? in ~tech
Malle Link ParentThank you for at least engaging with what I was talking about. Admittedly my understanding of these things is mostly based on learning the basics of how Bitcoin works many years ago and sporadic...Thank you for at least engaging with what I was talking about.
Admittedly my understanding of these things is mostly based on learning the basics of how Bitcoin works many years ago and sporadic updates since, so there may definitely be blind spots.
First, can you explain why you think (significant) de jure enforcement of ownership is necessary to say you de facto own something? As far as I can tell, this is not the case. Let's say I have an apple in my home. I de facto own the apple. I could eat it if I want. Maybe I took that apple from an apple tree belonging to someone else. If there's no de jure ownership established and no system in place to forcefully return the apple (i.e. align de jury and de facto ownership), by my reading of what you wrote you would say I do not de facto own the apple. But I possess the apple, I can access it, I could use it as I like.
Second, just to make sure I am understanding you correctly, you think that within blockchains (e.g. the Bitcoin blockchain) a user's control of some specific set of information on that blockchain (e.g. the amount of Bitcoin at an address) is so fragile that it could be lost at any moment, that their keys could no longer be used to update the same set of information on the chain? If so, that sounds like a very lucrative opportunity. Is this something you think is inherent to the use of blockchains, or just how they are being used by various parties?
-
Comment on For those involved / interested in Web3, what do you make of the near and long term future for it? in ~tech
Malle Link ParentI'm sorry, but did you even read my replies? You are not engaging with the point I was replying about (to me the perceived difference in the usage of "ownership" by you and GoingMerry), and you...I'm sorry, but did you even read my replies? You are not engaging with the point I was replying about (to me the perceived difference in the usage of "ownership" by you and GoingMerry), and you seem to reply to me with "gotchas" about things that I've not argued or I've already addressed.
Blockchains do not inherently provide de jure ownership, but inherently nothing does as it is a construct of the legal framework. What blockchains can provide is de facto ownership, but only for the information stored on chain and only with respect to the state of how it is stored on the chain.
As a sidenote: for information, encryption in general is enough to provide the same level of de facto ownership. Thus, the use of blockchain is not in the de facto ownership itself, but that it creates a decentralized state of information which participating parties can agree upon, which supports de facto ownership of said information, and which can be used to replicate actions which can be done for tangible assets such as transferring de facto ownership to others.
-
Comment on For those involved / interested in Web3, what do you make of the near and long term future for it? in ~tech
Malle Link ParentNo, using the distinctions I listed a contract gives you de jure ownership, not de facto ownership. For instance, I can have a contract that says I bought a car for an amount of money, but the...No, using the distinctions I listed a contract gives you de jure ownership, not de facto ownership.
For instance, I can have a contract that says I bought a car for an amount of money, but the seller took the money, disappeared, and never gave me the car. I de jure own the car, but do not de facto own it. Or, in other words, I am legally speaking the owner of the car but I do not possess it, have access to it, or am able to use it.
-
Comment on For those involved / interested in Web3, what do you make of the near and long term future for it? in ~tech
Malle Link ParentI think there is a distinction to be made here between ownership in a legal framework (de jure) and ownership in a pragmatic sense (de facto). Maybe "control" is a more fitting word for the latter...I think there is a distinction to be made here between ownership in a legal framework (de jure) and ownership in a pragmatic sense (de facto). Maybe "control" is a more fitting word for the latter if we want to disambiguate and be concise.
When I say I own a thing, I can mean that I have acquired it legitimately within the legal framework I exist in (de jure ownership), but also that I possess it, have access to it, and am able to use it as I see fit (de facto ownership).
Blockchains do not inherently provide de jure ownership, but inherently nothing does as it is a construct of the legal framework. What blockchains can provide is de facto ownership, but only for the information stored on chain and only with respect to the state of how it is stored on the chain.
Working with extending the scope of that ownership is basically either trying to use it like deeds to declare de jure ownership within the legal framework, or to build systems that enforce de facto ownership of stuff off-chain based on information on-chain.
As a sidenote: for information, encryption in general is enough to provide the same level of de facto ownership. Thus, the use of blockchain is not in the de facto ownership itself, but that it creates a decentralized state of information which participating parties can agree upon, which supports de facto ownership of said information, and which can be used to replicate actions which can be done for tangible assets such as transferring de facto ownership to others.
-
Comment on Swedish company Scout Park has launched a mobile app where you can tip off wrongly parked cars to traffic wardens to earn money in ~transport
Malle Link ParentWrongful parking is not a crime, it's a civil matter with a fine. It cannot on its own lead to your license being revoked or to jail time, there would have to be another charge such as reckless...It's a contempt of court charge in the US, where "we don't have debtors prisons anymore". I have no clue about Swedish law, but I would be surprised if they didn't have analogous outcomes.
Wrongful parking is not a crime, it's a civil matter with a fine. It cannot on its own lead to your license being revoked or to jail time, there would have to be another charge such as reckless behaviour.
Not paying the fine is not a crime, but comes with additional costs. If you are unable or unwilling to pay, eventually the debt will be sent to Kronofogden. It's the Swedish government agency tasked with debt collection, among other things. They may collect on your debt by for instance seizing cash, money in your bank accounts, stocks, tax returns, or your salary. Seizing other property is mostly within their rights but as far as I know it's a last resort, and even then there are some restrictions on what they may seize.
The courts are not involved unless you first contest the fine with the police, they reject it, you then apply for an appeal, and then the courts approve the appeal.
Yes, if you then go ahead and disrupt the courts proceedings in a sufficiently significant fashion, you can get sentenced to another fine or up to 6 months in jail, but that is an entirely separate offense which would not be applicable if you just refused to pay the fine.
-
Comment on Chechnya 'bans music that is too fast or too slow' in ~music
Malle (edited )Link ParentThank you for giving examples. I do not perceive the second to be noticably slower than the first one, definitely not at half the pulse/tempo/speed/bpm. Edit to add: if they are mathematically...Thank you for giving examples. I do not perceive the second to be noticably slower than the first one, definitely not at half the pulse/tempo/speed/bpm.
Edit to add: if they are mathematically identical, does that not contradict your assertion that a bpm classification is vague?
-
Comment on Chechnya 'bans music that is too fast or too slow' in ~music
Malle Link ParentVeering off topic here, but could you expand on this for someone who is definitely not a musician? Because without any deeper knowledge it feels very much like the answer is "just count the beats...Veering off topic here, but could you expand on this for someone who is definitely not a musician? Because without any deeper knowledge it feels very much like the answer is "just count the beats and time it" and my cursory search on common time vs cut time has not helped me see what you're talking about.
-
Comment on Executions in ~humanities
Malle Link ParentTaking the video from Thursday last week as a reference, and using the page cfabbro linked elsewhere in the comments, they seem to be blocked in Canada, the UK, Ireland, Australia, and New Zealand.Taking the video from Thursday last week as a reference, and using the page cfabbro linked elsewhere in the comments, they seem to be blocked in Canada, the UK, Ireland, Australia, and New Zealand.
Lab grown meat or cultured meat, as a concept, may absolutely include other components than pure muscle. Consider the 2004 patent US6835390B1[1] which in its abstract notes that "The meat product may also comprise other cells such as fat cells or cartilage cells, or both, that are grown ex vivo together with the muscle cells". Consider also that at least some work is being done on culturing fat, such as in this 2023 paper[2], with the editor's note starts by saying "This paper describes an important new method to cultivate fat tissues in vitro for meat production".
I think it is fair to say that the long-term aspiration is absolutely that products made using cultured meat will be more or less indistinguishable from those made with regular meat to someone who eats it, if for no other reason that it will be easier to market. To what extent it actually will be that remains to be seen. For instance, it seems reasonable that it will be easier to reach that level of fidelity if the meat is used to make sausages than if it tries to replace the aforementioned ribeye steak.
That said, I don't think it needs to replace all meat products for the prospect of cultured meat to be potentially exciting, nor does it have to replace any specific meat product I consume. Disregarding any ethical concerns for sake of argument here, there are also pragmatic concerns which cultured meat maybe could improve, even if it only displaces a part of the regular meat market. Risk of antibiotic resistance, risk of zoonotic diseases, energy requirements, resource usage like land and water, transportation requirements, other environmental and climate impacts, etc.
Jon Vein (2004), Method for producing tissue engineered meat for consumption, US6835390B1, https://patents.google.com/patent/US6835390B1/en
John Se Kit Yuen Jr, Michael K Saad, Ning Xiang, Brigid M Barrick, Hailey DiCindio, Chunmei Li, Sabrina W Zhang, Miriam Rittenberg, Emily T Lew, Kevin Lin Zhang, Glenn Leung, Jaymie A Pietropinto, David L Kaplan (2023) Aggregating in vitro-grown adipocytes to produce macroscale cell-cultured fat tissue with tunable lipid compositions for food applications eLife 12:e82120, https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.82120