> I'm not sure that anyone under the age of 45-50 can truly appreciate just how big of a deal Terminator 2 was and how big movie releases can be.
100% agreed. Really was a magical time.
For me what "infinite CGI" has done is completely dull the wow factor of literally any movie. Decades ago the effects of T2 and others blew everyone's minds in a way people who weren't around can't comprehend. CGI was brand new and special effects really felt like you were witnessing elaborate magic tricks (since that's what they were).
Now we've seen movies do basically everything and the answer to "how'd they do that???" is just "yeah they used CGI." And CGI still doesn't feel grounded in reality like practical effects do.
> Is it a lack of knowledge from the users or do they really value iMessage integration that much?
My understanding is that the barrier to entry to using iMessage makes iMessage a LOT more secure from spam. If you want to do mass iMessages you have to register as a business with Apple, go through all sorts of checks and attestations, etc.
At any rate, iMessages are a lot more trustworthy than SMS. So being able to spam people via iMessage is very desirable. I recall a few months ago a guy posting his little spam-iMessage-as-a-Service product here on HN. You could build your little iMessage spam army using a bunch of Mac Minis...
> Stupid parliamentary trick: Hold the vote on the day before the summer break - ensuring that many people have already returned to their home countries.
Maybe people should demand better of their representatives. Would YOUR job be OK with you not being able to perform your duties the day BEFORE your vacation starts? The time to go home is when your vacations STARTS, not one or more days before.
> literally convicted of sexual assault in a court of law
It was a civil case, not criminal, and had included no physical evidence. And the claim was so old the statute of limitations had run out, but no worries, New York temporarily extended it so she could bring her lawsuit against Trump. It was bullshit, like most of these cases of women crawling out of the woodwork after decades during very critical times are.
When your standard is "believe all women, no matter how long it's been, no matter how politically convenient the timing is, no matter that there's nothing but anecdotal evidence", well, don't be surprised when it's used against your team.
> You can guess where the bar is
Have you considered that maybe people don't believe these political stunts rather than tacitly approve of what the person was accused of? You're even doubtful of the Platner one. This trick has been played one too many times for people to take them at face value anymore.
It's not so much "support" as "not caring." Most "regular" people, when they hear about measures like this, say "oh no, the government can see my boring text messages to grandma, who cares", much they same way they shrug off the dangers of having a robot vacuum live-streaming the inside of their house to China ("there's nothing interesting in my house, who cares").
Kind of surprised they don't just pitch it as a way to root out Russian propaganda and right-wing extremism. Public opinion would shift overnight. They'd practically demand it!
They were unarmed and the government was and continues to be scared shitless of that "attempted overthrow" (with no weapons? Does anyone really believe that had any chance of succeeding?) to this very day.
Seems to me like that Second Amendment thing could be very effective with a sufficiently motivated population.
> Is the presumption that China, the country of one child policy, will do nothing about the problem?
I don't think they're foolish enough to invite the entire third world into the country to bolster low birth rates like the west does. So that leaves doing it the old fashioned way, which is a slow ship to turn around.
> That article doesn't mention the word "race" once.
Are you being intentionally obtuse by pretending ethnicity and race can't be used interchangeably on a broad level? The entire point of requiring "diversity in bone marrow donation" is that you can't just take bone marrow from an ethnically caucasian ("white" in racial classification terms) and expect the transfer to be successful for an African American person ("black" in racial classification terms). Yes "white", "black" et al are imprecise terms but they broadly align with certain ethnic groups, and there ARE biological differences between ethnicities.
> and I would say there is generally a pretty good idea of how to mitigate them to be impactful
Yes and no. No in the sense that the space of possible ways to craft a malicious prompt is infinite. Yes in the sense that you can lock down every single possible way the agent can interact with the system. But, will doing so render the agent nearly useless? And, are you absolutely sure you'll never forget to lock each and every thing down, including things you weren't aware of?
> second LLM as judge
Again, see above. You're perhaps making it harder to craft a prompt injection, but not impossible. This is a false sense of security.
> Finding the right donor for a patient isn’t simple. Donors and patients are matched largely based on genes called human leukocyte antigens (HLAs). These genes code for proteins—or markers—found on most of the cells in your body. When it comes to matching HLA types, a patient’s ethnic background is important in predicting the likelihood of finding a match. That’s because HLA is inherited. Some ethnic groups have more complex tissue types than others, which makes finding a close match more difficult.
Do you think having a union means the entire organization can't get shitcanned? Ask all those auto workers whose jobs got shipped to Mexico over the years how much being unionized helped.
Yeah I think the 19th century was a little bit different than today. Unions only work as far as you, the worker, are irreplaceable. Plumbers, electricians, etc. -- all that work has to be done "here and now." You can't just instantly teleport a bunch of Indian plumbers to fix a broken water main in downtown New York. Those tradeworkers have actual leverage. And, to your example, what is feasible to outsource (either to other countries or technology) shifts over time.
You _can_ do computer-based work anywhere, anytime. People working in software have no leverage at all, between India and AI. Software unions will kick the race to the bottom into overdrive.
100% agreed. Really was a magical time.
For me what "infinite CGI" has done is completely dull the wow factor of literally any movie. Decades ago the effects of T2 and others blew everyone's minds in a way people who weren't around can't comprehend. CGI was brand new and special effects really felt like you were witnessing elaborate magic tricks (since that's what they were).
Now we've seen movies do basically everything and the answer to "how'd they do that???" is just "yeah they used CGI." And CGI still doesn't feel grounded in reality like practical effects do.