This is a strange statement because by definition the innocent don't need mercy. Mercy is forgiveness for wrongdoing, and refusing to forgive and give mercy to some leads to a society that is cruel. As Thomas Acquinas put it:
justice without mercy is cruelty; mercy without justice is dissolution.
Yet government wrongs normal people who have done nothing daily. Subjects them to crime through ineffective justice, taxes them, criminalizes behaviour that rational people would consider not to be criminal, etc...
In my country they'll try to prosecute you for longer jail sentences if you criticize the government than if you kill someone...
Look at the UAE, no income tax, only 9% corporate tax, GDP per capita higher than most of western Europe, and three of the top ten safest cities in the world (https://worldpopulationreview.com/world-city-rankings/safest...). GDP projected to grow 3% this year in spite of being bombed and having its main export waterway blocked. Literally over 100x lower chance of being sexually assaulted there than in the UK or France.
Which is basically Wilhoit's Law, an attempt to define conservatism.
edit: For those who don't want to look it up, Wilhoit's law is usually stated like this: "Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect."
The law, as practiced in the United States, is Schrodinger's law, it magically changes if you observe it.
As an example, if me and 10 others commit the same crime, in the same city, get caught by the same cop, processed by the same judge, even all somehow hire the same lawyer to defend and represent us, I'm willing to bet we would all get completely inconsistent sentencing. None of us need to be politicians or elites either. There's definitely judges who don't care how much money you have, they'll treat you like anyone else, or with extreme prejudice.
Can we stop acting like selective quoting from discovered materials gives us an unbiased and factual representation of the truth? The plaintiff is always trying to cherry-pick and distort elements from discovered material. And this is exactly why every large corporation without exception tries to train their employees to not draw conclusions of law in discoverable written materials. A computer science professor does not have the requisite knowledge to determine that some act was "theft of labor" nor the knowledge required to contextualize that "in human history".
Yeah, that some shumck of an executive at Microsoft happens to have had similar sentimental notions as other members of the literati who hate AI is not an "admission" or even a particularly interesting fact.
Given the process by which "meritocratic" elites are usually selected and trained, it would be odd if this wasn't sometimes the case.
I’d separate two questions here: whether the article’s evidence is representative, and whether the conduct it describes would be tolerated from a smaller company or an individual.
Stoller is an FDR-ish political progressive who focuses primarily on monopolies and antitrust enforcement. He's the author of "Goliath: The 100-Year War Between Monopoly Power and Democracy": https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/40538538-goliath
Answer above is good, but yes he's a known quantity. I am a political moderate and definitely don't agree with everything he says, but I find his POV (and knowledge of antitrust history) to be a valuable perspective.
Let’s get into specifics. By far the most important and successful action the FTC took was in 2021, when the commission blocked the merger between AI chipmaker Nvidia and Arm. That set the stage for the growth of both companies, who could focus on their lines of business instead of a cumbersome set of turf wars that accompany mergers. Today, for better or worse, Nvidia is the biggest company in the world by market capitalization, the engine of the AI revolution.
The FTC has nothing to do with NVIDIA's market capitalization.
Literally nobody cares about antitrust except antitrust lawyers. Why? Not because of some conspiracy. There might be a lot of laws on the books, but antitrust is not one of them. The antitrust act is one paragraph long. It is one of the most toxic examples of insufficiency from Congress. So everything in this article about, this is illegal, that is illegal, whatever... it's a matter of opinion. Sherman Antitrust Act is one paragraph long!
The law, as practiced in the United States, protects but does not bind elites, whereas the law binds but does not protect the lower classes.
If there is one fundamental problem with our society it is this.
Mercy for the rich. Justice for the poor.
A healthy society does the opposite, those with much should be held to higher standards.
No, a healthy society shows mercy to the innocent, and enacts justice on the guilty.
This is a strange statement because by definition the innocent don't need mercy. Mercy is forgiveness for wrongdoing, and refusing to forgive and give mercy to some leads to a society that is cruel. As Thomas Acquinas put it:
Yet government wrongs normal people who have done nothing daily. Subjects them to crime through ineffective justice, taxes them, criminalizes behaviour that rational people would consider not to be criminal, etc...
In my country they'll try to prosecute you for longer jail sentences if you criticize the government than if you kill someone...
taxation is not a wrong. look at places without government, and decide if they have a better standard of living.
Look at the UAE, no income tax, only 9% corporate tax, GDP per capita higher than most of western Europe, and three of the top ten safest cities in the world (https://worldpopulationreview.com/world-city-rankings/safest...). GDP projected to grow 3% this year in spite of being bombed and having its main export waterway blocked. Literally over 100x lower chance of being sexually assaulted there than in the UK or France.
And yet the same doesn't happen to the rich people doing the same. Which is funny as you ask for exactly that to be the case.
Which is basically Wilhoit's Law, an attempt to define conservatism.
edit: For those who don't want to look it up, Wilhoit's law is usually stated like this: "Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect."
Life's so much easier when you can just caricature the people you disagree with, innit?
FWIW I don't agree with Wilhoit, just explaining where the idea came from.
Was there ever a time when this was not the case?
The law, as practiced in the United States, is Schrodinger's law, it magically changes if you observe it.
As an example, if me and 10 others commit the same crime, in the same city, get caught by the same cop, processed by the same judge, even all somehow hire the same lawyer to defend and represent us, I'm willing to bet we would all get completely inconsistent sentencing. None of us need to be politicians or elites either. There's definitely judges who don't care how much money you have, they'll treat you like anyone else, or with extreme prejudice.
Can we stop acting like selective quoting from discovered materials gives us an unbiased and factual representation of the truth? The plaintiff is always trying to cherry-pick and distort elements from discovered material. And this is exactly why every large corporation without exception tries to train their employees to not draw conclusions of law in discoverable written materials. A computer science professor does not have the requisite knowledge to determine that some act was "theft of labor" nor the knowledge required to contextualize that "in human history".
Yeah, that some shumck of an executive at Microsoft happens to have had similar sentimental notions as other members of the literati who hate AI is not an "admission" or even a particularly interesting fact.
Given the process by which "meritocratic" elites are usually selected and trained, it would be odd if this wasn't sometimes the case.
I’d separate two questions here: whether the article’s evidence is representative, and whether the conduct it describes would be tolerated from a smaller company or an individual.
The article itself answers the second question.
That Aaron Swartz guy was prosecuted so hard for downloading some academic papers, he killed himself.
Meanwhile, AI companies are free to steal literally any content they want and nothing will ever happens with them.
Who is Matt Stoller? Is he a known quantity?
Stoller is an FDR-ish political progressive who focuses primarily on monopolies and antitrust enforcement. He's the author of "Goliath: The 100-Year War Between Monopoly Power and Democracy": https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/40538538-goliath
Answer above is good, but yes he's a known quantity. I am a political moderate and definitely don't agree with everything he says, but I find his POV (and knowledge of antitrust history) to be a valuable perspective.
The FTC has nothing to do with NVIDIA's market capitalization.
Literally nobody cares about antitrust except antitrust lawyers. Why? Not because of some conspiracy. There might be a lot of laws on the books, but antitrust is not one of them. The antitrust act is one paragraph long. It is one of the most toxic examples of insufficiency from Congress. So everything in this article about, this is illegal, that is illegal, whatever... it's a matter of opinion. Sherman Antitrust Act is one paragraph long!