If the major nations that host companies that create those OS models implement export control on top models, there won't be any new OS models with top capabilities.
> Germany is a big reason GDPR got so complicated and why, hopefully soon, it will be updated to not be fixated on just cookies so much.
In what way is GDPR focused on cookies?
In my experience, developers in online discussions make it seem all about cookies, pretending other ways of tracking don't exist, while the law does not. But it has been a while since I looked into it and I might remember that wrong.
> There usually is no cookie screen when you install one usually (unless it's a web app packaged up as an app).
A lot of games provide opt-in screens, as they heavily rely on ad networks.
> If you read the actual law, it barely mention cookies at all
Now I am confused, didn't you just say it was focused on cookies?
The part that annoys me about the toxicity, or repetetive and annoying topics on reddit, HN, etc. is not that I am unaware that the content is produced by a small fraction. (I underestimated the count! I guessed 2%)
It's that people espouse it: They upvote and retweet it.
> Both sides develop wildly inaccurate beliefs about who the other side actually is.
That was a guess I had for a while. People have a strawman version of their out-groups in mind and quickly map people to that if an unknown person says something that indicates they might be part of the out-group.
> What percentage of the other side supports political violence?
It would be interesting to see the in-group statistic as well: "What percentage of your own side supports policical violence?", in my experience people also justify very shitty behavior as long as its from their in-group. (This plays heavily into the first point of espousing all kinds of shit)
---
It would be interesting to see if the community check actually changes anything. But the actual data seems to be only possibly for very generic topics - those we have the data on already. Something that would not be available for daily-fresh topics.
For my personal sanity I simply left reddit and stopped opening comments on certain HN posts - of course that does not help with the societal problems. Unfortunately.
In a team I worked, we had full control over how we wanted to use the board. But the senior people just refused to engage with it, as anything they did on the board would make them accountable.
My lesson: Boards can be awful and useless even without managers running them! :)
I've been using a simple, standalone kanban to manage my own tasks, though.
This is the weirdest example of "gambling" I have seen in my life.
If you'd've written "unprotected sex" I'd see the gambling part, but "extramartial sex" covers so much more than the tiny subset of "whose baby is it" (how many people are there having sex to gamble on who will be the father of a baby? 10?).
If you are arguing that "siding with the others because of rethoric is dangerous", you are right in general. But to a very surprised reader of this thread, you are arguing with someone that responded to
> Anyone deliberately facilitating that certainly deserves the worst fate imaginable.
That came in a thread started with a now (justly) removed
> might wake up to their family chopped to pieces
This sets the tone I (and possibly others) interpret that message.
I know we are supposed to charitably interpret what people write on here, but a thread like this makes it really hard, given the tone.
> Even if we assume LLMs would consistently generate good enough quality code, code submitted by someone untrusted would still need detailed review for many reasons - so even in that case it would like be faster for the maintainers to just use the tools themselves, rather than reviewing someone else's use of the same tools.
Wouldn't an agent run by a maintainer require the same scrutiny? An agent is imo "someone else" and not a trusted maintainer.
> I can still license that code to a company and ask them to pay me for using the code
I believe you can do that with public domain/copyright free material in general. There is no requirement to tell someone that the material you license them is also available under a different one or that your license is not enforceable.
I remember the case of books used for training, where the court found training to be fair use, but the material has to be legally obtained (=Bought instead of pirated the books).
It can also be 3 people, as one person can be a father and a son at the same time. If you allow non-mentioned people to be included in the attribute (i.e. the sons of the fathers are not part of the 2) it could also be 2 people, as long as they are fathers.
That's interesting as my first thought reading the comments was "this problem seems very similar to many students writing papers just finding citations that sound correct".
Sometimes it is really sad to read from (even PhD level) students on social media about their paper writing practices.
We might remember the last 40 years differently, I seem to remember data centers requiring power plants and part shortages. I can't check though as Google search is too heavy for my on-plane wifi right now.
> Looking forward to the NALs responding why this is terrible.
My NAL guess is that it will go a little like this:
* Candidate makes disparaging post on reddit/HN.
* Gets many responses rallying behind him.
* Company (if they notice at all) sues him for breach of Non-Disparagement-Agreement.
* Candidate makes followup post/edit/comment about being sued for their post.
* Gets even more responses rallying behind him.
Result: Company gets $10.000 and even more damage to their image.
(Of course it might discourage some people from making that post to begin with, which would have been the goal. You might never try to enforce the NDA to prevent the above situation. Then it's just a question of: Is the effort to draft the NDA worth the reduction in risk of negative exposure, when you can simply avoid all of it by not providing feedback.)
But that interpretation would make the second half a moot point, wouldn't it?
> You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.
If you want to say a person can only reason themselves into any position, it could become "You can't reason someone out of a position."