Hasnain says:

"The problem is that certain medicines necessarily given to these donors before death, but in expectation of death, may hasten their death. The medicines are given for the sole purpose of making their organs more viable for transplantation. Heparin, for example, prevents blood clotting, while phentolamine dilates blood vessels and improves blood flow to the organs. Yet heparin also increases the chances of bleeding into the brain, while phentolamine may lower blood pressure to the degree that a person goes into shock. Although these patients are near death for other reasons, the medicines may become their actual cause of death. This makes doctors uneasy; hence the rule not to give these medicines to donors prone to bleeding or with low blood pressure."

Hasnain says:

"So, the reasons we don’t have widespread graph support:

* There are many different kinds of graphs
* There are many different representations of each kind of graph
* There are many different graph algorithms
* Graph algorithm performance is very sensitive to graph representation and implementation details
* People run very expensive algorithms on very big graphs.

This explains why languages don’t support graphs in their standard libraries: too many design decisions, too many tradeoffs, and too much maintenance burden. It explains why programmers might avoid third party graph libraries, because they’re either too limited or too slow. And it explains why programmers might not want to think about things in terms of graphs except in extreme circumstances: it’s just too hard to work with them."

Hasnain says:

I did a double take when I first read that Atlantic piece because what depraved demon from the depths of hell do you have to be to go out and imply “yes it was legal to kill this child and it’s unfortunate to imply we were illegally killing this child (which would be bad)”

“Think about the kind of worldview which could publish something like that. This made it through the entire editing process in a mainstream liberal publication.

Anyone who’s been following the Gaza genocide on social media today will be seeing this phrase “legally killed child” alongside footage of children ripped apart by Israeli military explosives in a civilian displacement camp — a pairing which, if you have a beating heart in your chest and a functioning empathy center in your brain, will spark a very special kind of rage inside you.

The way these two points dance together just says so much about what we’re dealing with here, when you take a step back and really look at it. It says so much about Israel. It says so much about western civilization. It says so much about the western press in general and liberal war propaganda rags like The Atlantic in particular. It says so much about the kind of mainstream political worldview which could allow for such a thing to exist. And it says we live in a civilization that has gone completely, utterly insane.”

Hasnain says:

“Dr H.A. Hellyer, a scholar of security studies and the Middle East at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said the Biden administration risks “a massive blow to American credibility, such as it is,” if it fails to support the court’s order.

“The ICJ ruling is not in the abstract, nor is it in need of detailed interpretation. It’s very clear,” he said. “This is the highest court in the world, and they’ve said any action in Rafah that could bring about the destruction of Palestinians needs to immediately stop. So you either support international law or you don’t.””

Hasnain says:

“In a message to employees that was leaked to Vox, OpenAI chief strategy officer Jason Kwon acknowledged that the provision had been in place since 2019 but that “The team did catch this ~month ago. The fact that it went this long before the catch is on me.”

But there's a problem with those apologies from company leadership. Company documents obtained by Vox with signatures from Altman and Kwon complicate their claim that the clawback provisions were something they hadn’t known about. A separation letter on the termination documents, which you can read embedded below, says in plain language, “If you have any vested Units ... you are required to sign a release of claims agreement within 60 days in order to retain such Units.” It is signed by Kwon, along with OpenAI VP of people Diane Yoon (who departed OpenAI recently). The secret ultra-restrictive NDA, signed for only the “consideration” of already vested equity, is signed by COO Brad Lightcap.”

Hasnain says:

More relevant today especially given the equity drama

“Every single thing that Sam Altman and OpenAI does is suspicious, and it has been for months, ever since Altman was fired and then rehired as CEO with — to this day — little or no explanation. Sam Altman has repeatedly said things that, if any founder with less power, presence, access and funding had said, they'd be laughed at, ignored, and treated like fantasists. Altman is the P.T. Barnum of tech, with just enough knowledge to be dangerous but far too little to actually say anything of note. He is not the technical mind behind OpenAI, he did not write its models, and looking up to him as some sort of technolojesus is bad for the tech industry and worse for the world. This is not a person that should be making decisions about the future of the tech industry, nor should he be allowed to spout fan fiction and automatically have it covered as gospel.”

Hasnain says:

Comes as Blinken admitted he would rather starve children across the globe (threatening to pull funding from UN programs that feed kids) than accept that the ICC has a valid warrant.

Dark day in history

Hasnain says:

"Stanford Law School's Mark Lemley told Reuters he was skeptical Google’s gambit would prevail. He said a jury could ultimately decide higher damages than whatever Google put forward.

“Antitrust cases regularly go to juries. I think it is a sign that Google is worried about what a jury will do,” Lemley said.

Another legal scholar, Herbert Hovenkamp of the University of Pennsylvania’s law school, called Google's move "smart" in a post on X. “Juries are bad at deciding technical cases, and further they do not have the authority to order a breakup,” he wrote.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 2016 case that an offer for “complete relief” did not wipe out a class-action claim. But Google argued its payment is different, because it submitted an actual check and not merely an offer."

Hasnain says:

Of course.

“OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, who has said the 2013 Spike Jonze film is his favorite movie, invited comparisons by posting the word "Her" on X after the company announced the new ChatGPT version. But later, OpenAI executives denied any connection between Johansson and the new voice assistant.

The company said in a post on X just before midnight Pacific time Sunday that the voice would be paused as it addresses "questions about how we chose the voices in ChatGPT." A company spokeswoman would not provide further detail.”

Hasnain says:

As the president, who was he insubordinate to?!

“The punishment marks perhaps the harshest disciplinary action against a campus chancellor or president in California over the handling of protests of the war in Gaza. It also underscores an unwillingness to divest from Israeli weapons manufacturers — as pro-Palestinian protesters across the country have increasingly demanded the last few months — among leaders of the CSU system and its sister University of California system.”