Default date in form

^  #  ^  Date of check  ^  User Name  ^ Description  ^
<pagemod custom_check _before>| @@auto_inc@@| @@Date of check|@@today@@@@ | @@meta.user.name@@ |@@Check Description@@  |
</pagemod>

<form>
action pagemod _self custom_check

fieldset "New Entry"
textbox  "Check Description" ^
hiddenautoinc "auto_inc"
hidden   "today" "=%Y-%m-%d"

yesno    "Need to enter your own date?"

fieldset "Enter your date" "Need to enter your own date?"
date     "Date of check"

fieldset "√"
submit   "√ Submit"
</form>

Debian 12 > Debian 13 Plesk Obsidian 18.0.74 and above

Anthropic lost more than $8 billion on its operations last year. Now the company, warning that AI could threaten humanity, wants Washington to take a bigger role in controlling the industry.

An $8 billion loss ought to put management on the spot. Anthropic would rather have Congress worrying about the end of the world. //

Congress could make catching Anthropic more expensive, using rules Anthropic helped write. That looks like a pretty good deal for Anthropic.

With an IPO ahead and those losses on the books, I suspect the doom talk helps shift the conversation to something more comfortable for management. Instead of explaining when the business will make money, Anthropic gets to explain why Washington needs its advice to save humanity. The proposed rules could help protect its position while it works on the profits. //

Nobody at Anthropic seems to have stopped building. While its executives warn Congress about existential risk, its scientists run experiments and file discoveries to show prospective investors. That's a fine case to make to Wall Street. Sell the shares on that.

But leave Congress out of it. Make rival developers spend more before they can sell, give officials authority to block their releases, and let an incumbent benefit plenty; no ownership required.

Congress should ask the same question any investor would: Why is the company reporting an $8 billion operating loss so eager to write the rules for its competition?

MKD Ars Praetorian
10y
433
Bash said:

As much as I'd love a future Democrat government to fix this fourth amendment violation, this is not a new policy as of our current president. The current administration may have 'invented' using this tactic for oppression and intimidation, but so far both the R's and the D's are in support of this violation of our constitutional rights.

"Both"? This goes back to Collection Act of 1789, so throw in some Fs (Federalists), Ws (for Washington and the Whigs), NR (National Republican), NU (National Union), and D-Rs (Democrat-Republicans) and those Founding Fathers in the first Congress who voted for it.

Section 24 of the Collection Act empowered inspectors by giving them the authority to execute a warrantless search of any maritime vessel for any undeclared cargo or merchandise that was not on the vessel's shipping manifest if they believed that the ship was concealing taxable items intended for sale. The Collection Act did not specify criteria for suspicion, apparently leaving this up to the individual customs agents to determine on a case-by-case basis. It allowed for appointed agents of the United States to detain and board any vessel in U.S. waters in an effort to discover undocumented cargo. Furthermore, if a search proved fruitful, agents could appropriate a warrant and perform a daytime search of any dwelling, house, storage facility, or other place if they believed operations defrauding the nation of revenue were occurring there.

Stitching nine clouds together

• https://rclone.org/
• Once all the remotes were properly connected, I created the merge with a single config block: a new remote called CloudUnion.
• https://rcloneview.com/

Q. So is SpaceX just being selfish, or what?

A. SpaceX is a business, and like a lot of other businesses, especially publicly traded ones, the goal is to maximize revenue. From their perspective, it makes sense to remove distractions (such as Dragon and Falcon 9) and focus on the future of the company (Starship).

One way of looking at the last 20 years of spaceflight history, and NASA’s efforts to stimulate a low-Earth orbit economy, is to view SpaceX as the exception to the rule. In some sense, an economy based on astronauts in low-Earth orbit got lucky that SpaceX executed so successfully on Dragon. This allowed for the creation of a market around the idea of access at a price of $50 million per seat. At the same time, transportation competitors in cargo (Northrop) and crew (Boeing) struggled mightily. The best SpaceX’s competitors could do was nearly twice the price, and even then, not as reliably.

NASA seems to think Starliner, even at higher prices, will provide the guaranteed access it needs to low-Earth orbit in the 2030s for its astronauts. But in terms of a broader space economy in low-Earth orbit—which for decades the space agency has explicitly sought to foster—it is difficult to see Starliner providing a suitable solution. So yes, SpaceX pulling out of this market harms the industry. But should it be incumbent upon SpaceX to continue a line of business solely because it benefits its peers and competitors? //

Wickwick Ars Legatus Legionis
16y
41,072
I mentioned this after another article on the topic. The problem was NASA simply assumed that Dragon would be available for them in the future. They were used to dealing with contractors who were beholden to NASA's (and the DoD's) purse strings. It never occurred to NASA that a private company might decline to do business with them when given the opportunity. Otherwise, NASA would have included an availability clause in their Commercial Crew contracts that required SpaceX to provide the craft they helped pay for. It was simply NASA hubris that never envisioned this possibility. //

afidel Ars Legatus Legionis
24y
18,341
Subscriptor
Asbestos Muffins said:
nasa was barred from doing anything like that though. the whole point was commercial operators, privately owned and maintained vehicles
No, they weren't. They could have put in optional buys into the contract requirements, say up to 30 launches in traunches of 5 or 10 with pricing not to exceed X% above the previous traunch. That's fairly standard contract language when a buyer is investing heavily in a product.