> The scrubbing, Meta teams explained in documents regarding their efforts to reduce scam discoverability, sought to make problematic content “not findable” for “regulators, investigators and journalists.”
This seems to be the "smoking gun"... but it's unclear from the article what the source or context of the quotations are.
> Thinking of Kubernetes as a runtime for declarative infrastructure instead of a mere orchestrator results in very practical approaches to operate your cluster.
This is a pretty good definition.
I think part of the challenge is the evolution of K8s over time sometimes makes it feel less like a coherent runtime and more like a pile of glue amalgamated from several different components all stuck together. That and you will have to be aware of how those abstractions stick together with the abstractions from your cloud provider, etc...
Preprocess the documents to extract certain key features like "Cited Risk Factors", and have the AI model use that instead of each whole document as context?
“An unauthorized third party acquired certain LNRS data from a third-party platform used for software development. The issue did not affect LNRS’s own networks or systems,” the company said
> Now, you might be thinking: that’s all well and good, but I’ve got a full-time job, two kids and a mortgage. I’m happy to recycle and eat some tofu now and then, but a “fundamental transformation”? No thanks.
In that case, moral ambition may not be for you. I mean, once you have a labradoodle, a set of cheese knives or a robot mower, there’s generally no going back
it claims to be open source because the weights are freely available, and whether or not that conforms to the definition some consortium of folks cooked up for what "Open Source" means, anyone who can put aside their feelings of ire for Meta for 2 seconds can tell that making the weights available is meaningfully different than keeping them locked up, and exposes most of the value to the public to use, for free.
What's unclear is who the buyer is supposed to be? Chrome's entire monetization is centered around its synergy with Google's ad business. Cutting off Chrome is so much messier, than the obvious, (although I fear it would itself have bad repercussions) decision to force them to sell Youtube.
Not a fan overall of what DOGE is doing, but I disagree with your line of reasoning here. Obviously not all government agencies provide comparable amounts of value to the general public based on the resources they consume. Does one have to be an expert on the inner workings and initiatives of each of these organizations to have an opinion? Maybe, but that doesn't seem practical, outside of having some large oversight body employing many people to review this... which is just what DOGE purportedly is.
Now, is the current DOGE proceeding to do this in a reasonable way? No. But that largely comes down your assessment of the people running it, not anything implicit