Natanael

You can PIN lock hardware keys

Some password managers can sync passkeys for you! Bitwarden can handle it

How the fuck have you never heard of fingerprint copying?

Every fingerprint scanner which attempts to apply liveness detection has been fooled.

No biometrics is secure when used remotely. Ever. You can literally just replay the biometric data people send you after you create a phishing site and hack their accounts if it was sent raw.

Biometrics is inherently not securable and the only viable method of using it ever is locally only to unlock a different secret, which actually can be secure.

Most biometrics is trivial to duplicate, fingerprints can replicated from photographs.

Biometrics are battle tested and got annihilated in every conflict. It’s a total loser.

Only companies issuing their own passkeys on company hardware has a reason to enable attestation (forcing use of company approved devices throughout). Any public facing service has no reason to use attestation.

If you’re using software that properly uses your device’s SE / TPM chip then it’s much more secure against malware, etc. And the main selling point is the much stronger phishing resistance (can’t trick you into logging in via a fake site, etc)

Github doesn’t need to know how you implement it, just that your browser is handling it (and in this case the browser lets Bitwarden handle it lol)

Real life math from real countries says you’re wrong. The federal government is that contract between states and those smaller states are generally net receivers, not payers, so when they veto projects not dependent on them for anything and which don’t cost them anything, your entire argument is dead in the water.

You do not have a legitimate interest in that the budget is prevented from building good things like infrastructure for states who due to regulations and state plus federal law must use the federal government for coordination.

The option is of course that the big states stop funding the feds, this directly harms the small states as they used to be net receivers of funds, and now the fed is only a paper entity that does nothing. If the small states veto self funded projects by large states which gets managed federally, they deserve this outcome.

I was describing single winner, you’re describing multiple winner

Those are implemented very differently.

You can guarantee that popular choices gets represented (assuming enough seats for all popular choices) if you do pre-filtering rounds where you give weighted scoring to candidates based on their accumulated ballot rank positions. This would quickly sort out many last rank choices and few-first choices. Then you can proceed with the rounds of eliminations.

Practically speaking, perfect fairness is mathematically proven impossible. You have to make tradeoffs and pick a system that will likely get a good enough result

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow's_impossibility_theorem

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2026/08/260801042812.htm

The purpose is not what it is doing anymore.

if the majority wants to enact something without the consent of the Senate, they are free to enact it at the state level

Then the veto should not apply to (more than a representative percent of) federal budgets. A shared project which states want to coordinate should not be vetoable by non-participants.

If that can still be vetoed then the vetoing states have too much power and must be reined in

EDIT: I’m describing single winner elections.

Every round, you count one new step of rankings, and eliminate the lowest candidate.

Round one starts with simply counting all 1st rank votes first.

Everybody’s vote counts once, to one person. It goes to that voter’s highest still-in-the-running candidate.

In the first round, if some candidate already gets 50%, they win directly. If not, you eliminate the person with the lowest votes.
(some variants pre-filter all candidates with too few total votes to have a chance, especially people who didn’t even get ranked by most, or only low ranks)

What happens now is that people whose 1st vote was for the eliminated person gets redirected to their next highest person still in the running for the next round on the ballot which they cast. So in round 2 that’s your rank 2 on your ballot. Each remaining candidate now has their 1st rank votes from round 1 plus also their 2nd rank votes from all ballots which had been cast to the now-eliminated candidate.

Note that in each consecutive round, all votes which was already counted to a person who still in the running in that round remains untouched. So all who picked a 1st which is still in are still getting counted to that person. You don’t look at your 2nd rank yet if your 1st is still active.

So now in round 2, after the redirection to second choices, if that puts somebody over 50% they win. If not you eliminate yet another person, the lowest one every time. Every vote counted to that eliminated person, either 1st’s or 2nd’s, now gets redistributed again to that voter’s next highest person still in the running on their cast ballot - if your 1st is eliminated now, it goes to the 2nd if that person still is in, if not it goes to your 3rd. If you were already on your 2nd and that person is eliminated, it also goes to your 3rd. If somebody’s 1st and 2nd are eliminated AND they don’t have a 3rd, their vote gets ignored in the rest of the tallying process.

In round 3 and on you just keep going, until somebody gets 50% or all but one is eliminated. You may force a revote in many places if that person is beneath some threshold.

Instead you let a minority control the majority

Veto powers should be limited to that which directly impacts each state materially, not simply everything including things happening afar

The senate has too much veto power, see the entire Biden presidency

He believes in solipsism

They should ask Ukraine for their drones

GAN, generative adversarial networks

There’s supposed to be an inventive height. Obvious combinations aren’t patentable by law. But the patent offices are all stupid and just lets it happen and force people to take it to court.

Did you seriously stop reading after the first line? Your response has NOTHING to do with what I wrote.

Keep reading

If you’re going to make a law saying “anything with a neural architecture” it’s possible to keep the behavior with alternative architectures which remove the neurons.

I very explicitly and plain as day DID NOT say they are using something different today, I said your proposed law would make them change in response. This is very clearly not the thing you think I said.

If you change the proposed law further to “any software which takes a large amount of data to extract patterns iteratively to solve for arbitrary targets” then your regulation will cover every optimizing compiler and a ton of physics solvers.

The law should cover behavior of software deployments, not architectures.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.29530

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1009670302979

https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper/2020/file/e4acb4c86de9d2d9a41364f93951028d-Paper.pdf

https://arxiv.org/html/2106.03354v3

https://luke-griffiths.github.io/non-neural-networks/

Machine B has now been fully rewritten to structures that are no longer a neural network. Everything it learned has been extracted from the model and given a new form. It doesn’t even run on a GPU anymore.

Its just decision trees and explicit function now. Same origin, same behavior, wildly different implementation and appearance. It just looks like another program. Especially to a judge.

Every rule you wrote that specified “neural”, not something more universal as “heuristic”, has now been denied by the judge, as you do not have jurisdiction against the new thing.

This isn’t some academic wordplay either. All machine implementable logic has infinitely many possible representations. If you specify your rule on appearance, not behavior, then the appearance will change and the behavior stays.

This is a dumb take. You can use a more general term like large dataset generative machine learning. Legislation needs to understand the different risks between the different implementations to do any good.