In the US, publicly funded organizations are required to code their PDF with semantic structure to support machine access by screen readers and other assistive technologies [1], [2].

Given the low adherence to accessibility standards e.g. in academic publishing [3], LLM parsing needs creating a commercial incentive for comparable structured access would be marvelous.

[1] https://www.section508.gov/create/pdfs/common-tags-and-usage...

[2] https://pdfa.org/resource/tagged-pdf-best-practice-guide-syn...

[3] https://arxiv.org/html/2410.03022v1

American science is at risk not because of budget cuts, but because of executive interference https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tiE93b-jT-E&t=60s

Legality is certainly not just to do with breaking rules; this is more true the further up in the hierarchy you are.

Is this something that structured propmpts a la DSPy are designed to address?

That seems worth publishing.

Yep I am collecting my debates and one day I want to organize them with AI face and voices and release them as YouTube videos.

I would implore that you just write a blog post or two (or three) instead, but it is your choice of course.

Or the average human mind is fully equipped as is — seems like that has been proven over the millennia

What does it mean to say you get lower labor cost and government subsidy issues? Are you saying the tariffs are disproportionate to the impact of the subsidies? Temporary price distortions eliminate competition, not encourage it.

> IMO they are disproportionate.

Typing the three letters in “IMO” is most certainly easier than doing/documenting complex financial analysis.

The EU might have done a careful calculation with their tarrifs, but the US's tariffs of 100% seems closer to a nice round number they thought sounded good than carefully thought out "proportionate" response to whatever the Chinese governments' subsidies were.

Lots of people don’t do the analysis and leave out the IMO, so at least this is more honest.

It will be a deep dive into the most essential of HN staples, the nitpick

What if veganism is not about optimizing the human experience? To me it sounds cruel to say that there is no harm in milking a cow, pretty sure that milk was meant for someone else.

Correct, we don't need milk. Our bodies don't need milk past baby-hood. It's why women when pregnant only lactate, milk is for babies and we produce our own. Oat milk, coconut milk now make good alternatives and it's caught on because it's not a base item for meal.

I mean, it's used with other ingredients to produce the same result and you the difference is satisfactory. Coffee with oat milk, coconut is still coffee without or with dairy milk.

However, those substitutes in itself don't allow you to produce other products where it can aid in human development as an example.

Drinking milk by itself can be bad, your body can have trouble digesting it. But when the milk is used to produce cheese, which produces fat, proteins which your body do require in moderate amounts of where do you source that?

Robbing a cow of it's milk is an ethical question and one which is very debatable. Has the cow consented to giving you it's milk, as to the same as taking a hen's egg for a fried egg?

Nuts, have the tree consented for you taking their cashew nuts, olive oil which we inhumanely abuse too; forestation and the rest.

One could argue that the true food source is yourself.

Butchering your arm and frying it is probably the most humane, un-cruel source of food you could eat. But you were produced by your parents so you better ask for their permission first.

It all comes down to your morals and where your compass sits. Although in reality this is persuaded and manipulated by today's social constructs so not everyone has full working compass.

For me, if a cow produces excess amounts, and I can thank the cow before drinking the milk; turning that milk in to another food source that can benefit more. I feel that is satisfactory.

If they produce excess amounts, why waste it? Same with grapes, wine, nuts. They are all food providers and in excess. If I don't go in to greed. Start taking more than what's needed; I don't need cheese everyday, I don't need eggs every day, I don't see cruel.

It is cruel when it has to be produced extensively just to fuel the people who want it for greed or no purpose. If they need it more for their young, then it's theirs.

I can give back and just out of my own heart I do when I can. I'm very grateful for the sourced food I eat and I eat it in moderation. Alternatives do exist but when I desire such produce I ensure the best quality even if it costs.

Which it should, it shouldn't be cheap nor a commodity, but that itself raises the questions of what about those who can't afford quality foods -- should they go without?

Absent considerations about identities being stored by third parties, what is the downside of targeted ads? I found myself wishing for more targeted ads after listening to yet another random fast food ad the other day.

Because there shouldn’t be ads on my desktop. It’s become so normalized that people have been brainbroken into thinking it is fine.

IMO the problem is not that ads are better targeted, but the fact that they exist at all on the OS (let alone an OS I paid money for). Microsoft is truly cancer.

The fact that the targeting part is the output of a multibillion-dollar industry focused on scientific experimentation on humans without informed consent.

Also the fact that they're ads. That's a problem, too. Basically the whole thing is one big downside for everyone who isn't in adtech or trying to sell you shit you otherwise wouldn't buy.

You are assuming ads as a default. Assume no ads as a default, then ask "What is the downside of targeted ads versus no ads".

The downside of targeted ads, besides the targeted thing, is the ads thing.