Fantastic! I’m back in. Thank you so much.

I think PTH is not around, not sure about Apollo.

Heh, wrong type of tracker. :)

The dissolution of the SFRY was not just a tragedy, but a crime.

Excellent job, Wolfkiller.

Oh, and buying fossil overpriced energy in the bargain too. How truly good.

Interesting article, and I definitely agree I prefer clear instructions when those are possible.

I only have an objection. When it’s said that no matter how well chatbots behave, it’s bad design, and that they’re being used to substitute expensive people; well, expensive people’s interface is chatting too. So in that regard I’m not sure there’s a meaningful difference. Obviously there is if the chatbot is badly behaved, but the article says that it’s a problem even setting that aside.

I’ve tried deep research from ChatGPT for legal issues. It’s almost right. But still requires significant human oversight. For example I asked it for a set of norms that govern an issue and some of them were out of date.

You can dress it however you like, maybe even plead necessity, but what you can’t do at the same time is say how democratic it is because this features exists (which they don’t).

Edited for spelling.

Wow, it’s like he chose those examples on purpose to make his argument as ridiculous as possible: open borders (except for all the people forbidden to leave), regular elections (except now they’re indefinitely postponed)…

Get your DeepSeek3 and r1 weights before it’s illegal!

One of the things you’re missing is the same techniques are applicable to multimodality. They’ve already released a multimodal model: https://seekingalpha.com/news/4398945-deepseek-releases-open-source-ai-multimodal-model-janus-pro-7b

Advertising, cryptocoin shit, pay to play… This is an awful idea.

First it was NS2, now the cables. I wonder if they’ll admit the claims of Russian EM weapons–so-called Havana syndrome–are likewise groundless.

Haha, I was just going to post that. It’s such a cliché:

Made in China 2025 has, then, achieved most of its aims. But at what cost?

And of course the cost is… not enough consumer spending and services. Right. (with a tiny nod towards healthcare.)

I see some people are having issues with the scenario, but it’s not as impossible as it seems. The key is that Newtonian mechanics are in principle time-reversible. If a system got to a state one way, it can get back to the state it was by running it backwards, so to speak. A ball going down an inclined plain with a given kinetic energy could be going up that inclined plain up to the top with that same amount of energy.

The problem with these systems is, it’s possible to impel the right amount of force on a mobile so that it goes through a path and then stops. But since there is time reversibility, it should be possible for the mobile to spontaneously start moving from that stopping point and draw the same path.

Other weird similar cases are the so-called space invader (particle going to infinity, and therefore spontaneously appearing in reverse) and some strange n-body problem cases.

At a guess, it’s following older British norms, whereby a billion is what it is in other European languages (a million million) and a thousand million is a thousand million or, more pretentiously, a milliard. You’d have to ask the authors though.

Mmm, China perfidiously stealing the hard-earned talent of Western engineers? I know just the solution! They should build an anti-communist self-defence wall:

We no longer wanted to stand by passively and see how doctors, engineers, and skilled workers were induced by refined methods unworthy of the dignity of man to give up their secure existence in the GDR and work in West Germany or West Berlin. These and other manipulations cost the GDR annual losses amounting to 3.5 thousand million marks.

Some fine historical irony. Of course, given the way the university system works in places like the US, there’s not even a good argument that this imposes costs on the public, who trains personnel only for them to leave and benefit some other state.

Maybe this is what Trump’s wall is for.

At least there seems to be some change in messaging that indicates peace may be nearer.

It’s interesting how NATO is “forced” to take action by Chinese military build-up, doesn’t leave any room for China being forced to take action by NATO’s military build-up. Reminds me of that recent video of previous NATO’s head complaining about China placing bases close to NATO, when any NATO country is thousands of km away and China is deploying near its own coast.

I kept giving Mozilla the benefit of the doubt and telling myself things weren’t so bad.

I was wrong.

I’ll continue using Firefox because it’s the least bad option, but I can’t advocate for it in good faith anymore, and I don’t expect it to last long with this orientation.

So it goes.