It's worse than a farce. It's actually evil. The way "they" are pushing chat control, and how Ursula is avoiding justice (she has a huge corruption case hanging over her head but manages continuously cancel court dates); this makes a all too clear.
The only way to fix this is EU member states become more critical: but for politicians in those states an EU position is the best promotion they can make. So almost nobody dares to speak out.
But by most people definitions, Python certainly is NOT strongly typed.
My take at a definition... Strongly typed languages make a serious effort to use the type system to prevent whole categories of bugs.
It kinda bites with the "dynamic typing" (a euphemism or marketing-speak for "weak typing") that Python/Ruby/JS implement. Sure some are adding typing now (trying to make big codebases in those languages more manageable), but it's always an optional add-on.
Capitalism is allowing the winners of the markets to make the rules that everyone has to abide by, sidestepping "democracy" with anti-democratic "lobbyism" and creating a power hierarchy based on networth. The markets that allowed this are usually "free'ish" at best.
I really liked the article. Sure maybe the title of the original article is a little clickbaity; but are article titles not supposed to be "drawing your attention"?
The author is doing really cool things, like a worker-coop for software engineering:
Also i think the article contained some interesting points. Like the "class consciousness" of the owner-class and how this affects decisions on AI. But, to me, there were more.
Bloat is not "since generative AI coding" new. We always had it. As the author says:
> “It does sound like Facebook’s ‘move fast and break things,’ which didn’t age well either.”
Which indeed did not age well, but it did help the company to grow to a certain point at which it is now a staple in our lives (and can do super expensive BS experiments like "Metaverse" and still show profits).
This may be what Tan does as well: first profitable, then correct.
This is an approach, which may work for some, it may also allow some companies to become irrelevant (like: once the bloat-app is profitable, a clone-app emerges that is bloat-free and overtakes the bloat-app in every dimension, while the bloat-app is figuring out how to scale up with a shitty db schema).
In many cases "transport encryption" would also fit that definition.
E2ee is quite well established imho. The server at Hetzner (a.k.a. "someone else's computer") is NOT to be trusted in e2ee schemes. Until today I'd be willing to say everyone agrees on this, but now I doubt that :)
It's a definition question. E2ee means in this cases that "the server" cannot decipher the data: the keys to that are only on the client and never shared with the server.
This setup simply does fit the definition. And trying to say it is "e2ee practically" is a bit dishonest: there is no definition for "practical e2ee".
The point of e2ee is that you do not have to trust the server (see Bitwarden for instance).
There seems to be a multiple-of-19 "code" in the Quran. Many of these observations require the Arab alphabet to be interpreted as numbers; in Mohammed's days the Abjad system was used for this (similar but simpler than the Roman numerals, that also re-use the letters as numbers).
So using the Abjad system to give number values to the Arab letters there are many counts that add up to a multiple of 19. A critic (and I try to be one) so note that every 19 tries ("would this add up to a multiple of 19?") you are expected to find one that does add up to a multiple of 19!
In order to show how many cases add up, I created a unit test suite to demonstrate the claims.
Agreed. But to do so at govt level, those govts first need to free themselves from the infiltration of lobbyists that make these kinds of policies "unthinkable" for their coward politicians.
This is, IMHO, the big difference with enacting these kinds of policies to apartheid South Africa (mentioned a lot in this discussion). Lobbyism is very effective in this specific case.
From what I gather it's more that nazi/fascist/racist/extreme-right is used to shut people/parties up or paint them as impossible.
While the left/socialist/labour has alienated their base by not listening to the problem of the commoners who have to live among the immigrants (as they usually settle in the poorer parts of big cities, that where labour strongholds).
Upsides will be seen into societies that are not capital-above-govt, but govt-above-capital. China for instance: they will show advantages of AI (amongst other technologies). Sure they've got surveillance there, but there's also surveillance in the west. In China you have clean streets and low crime, while in the west it's surveillance without tangible benefit for the common people.
An LLM turned all my Latex projects to Typst and I'm not looking back.
Much easier stack (I stopped installing Latex-stacks myself, and switched to Overleaf, because it was just too finicky). Much simpler language. Just works.
The only way to fix this is EU member states become more critical: but for politicians in those states an EU position is the best promotion they can make. So almost nobody dares to speak out.