lou1306

That makes perfect sense indeed, although personally I'd prefer two senators per state. But since the EU as a political union is an afterthought of an economic union, it's full of loose ends like this. Also, national governments will be very reluctant to give up this kind of power.

The Council must go at some point. It is a "legislative" body... composed of members of the _executive_ branch of the individual countries. Granted, that's not the only problem with EU governance, but it is a rather glaring anomaly in terms of transparency and accountability.

Furthermore, at least in the case of Italy & other parliamentary systems, there's something like 3 levels of indirection between the people and their "representative" in the Council:

People elect members of the Parliament -> MPs decide who is the Prime Minister -> PM decides who sits in the Council

We should likely just replace it with either a "EU Senate", where each country elects the same number of senators, _or_ a chamber with truly European elections (as in, every EU citizen may vote for any candidate, regardless of their nation). But the latter option seems still out of reach as of today.

Re: making things about me (but also kind of related), I am working on a project that requires sending encrypted telemetry data from a Crazyflie drone (so, STM32) and it's such a fun experience. Each telemetry payload is just 26B so I had to get creative, write down packet diagrams and then make it work in C. An AI agent helps a bit with some stuff but you're mostly on your own.

In general I highly recommend going the embedded/IoT way if you look for challenges and constraints.

Saying that AfD "is an opponent of chat control" is like saying its more-or-less direct predecessor advocated for vegetarianism.

People (well, the European Parliament, which is arguably the closest approximation) have clearly and repeatedly opposed Chat Control.

The Commission is an expression of _governments_ (and this one in particular is the result of painstaking compromise) and is only loyal to presidents and prime ministers. It has no accountability to the EP, and it shows.

I was a net loss for quite longer than that. Nobody was concerned because I was surrounded by people who loved me.

Do they even _make_ actual money? https://isaiprofitable.com/ seems to disagree.

> The only real use case that makes sense to me is giving people in developing countries access to a stable currency they can actually hold, trade, and invest in, meaning USDT or USDC. Outside of that, as an EU/US citizen I don't see why I'd hold stablecoins instead of fiat

The logical conclusion of this train of thought (which I agree with) is that people who heavily invested in crypto may significantly benefit from weakening strong currencies and institutions. Make of that what you will.

Today I learned that This Is Spin̈al Tap is on the Criterion Collection.

Yeah except that the agent cannot be held accountable if its fix is crap, or if it went off-track mid-fix.

You actually hire a developer to work on that issue and not something else.

Perhaps relevant context: The EU commission just ignored the "Tech Sovereignty Package" it launched ~3 weeks ago, and explicitly referred open-source as a core element of their strategy, and endorsed W, another ATproto-based social that recently a) closed their code and b) ...had its CEO attend Davos. Make of that what you will.

Not just all BSky traffic: all traffic from every ATProto service

Are we really discussing a plan that has never been attempted before (training a frontier model on federated hardware) and that would require coordination on a continental scale, sketched on a five-page PDF on GitHub with no discernible author or affiliation? a PDF that, I am sorry to point out, reeks of AI prose in more than one passage?

What are we even doing here.

The "good lawyer" is/was a major archetype in modern Western culture. See "The Devil and Daniel Webster", "To Kill a Mockingbird", "Paths of Glory", just to name a few examples.

Good. This will force kids to be creative, hack around, and question authority.

Well the size of IJ is itself a statement: 1. there's an awful lot to unpack once you start exploring the intersection of capitalism, addiction, and entertainment; 2. can you even _manage_ to go through it all without switching to mindless consumption every 5 minutes?

If the backend function was so poorly coded to allow such a gargantuan security hole, then it is an even worse problem. Basically Meta is throwing its own engineers under the bus so that its AI chatbot can save face. Scary stuff.

Unless the backend was _also_ vibe-coded, in which case it is still an AI problem.

You joke but this is almost literally what Chain-of-Thought does, at least in the early days. They basically just added "Wait," to the model's output and fed it back to the model iirc

Well people _used_ to pay for it, in fact. Except it was 3 EUR/year rather than 3 EUR/month...

To be honest, Zork at times makes precious little sense: you are supposed to die over and over before you figure stuff out. For instance, you have to grab the endless-light-source treasure very early on, or you mathematically cannot win. And the game does not spell anything out for you, you just have to "get it" by watching closely at how/why you die.

This is a tall order for an LLM: it needs a lot of context but most of the context will be just noise.

I think the order in which the different elements of the book are introduced is crucial, as it leads to a lot of "aha!" moments.

> What put me off it is it just kind of reads like a rambling stoner conversation.

Yeah well, that book may not be your cup of tea then. The book _is_ rambling, plus a lot of the characters _are_ actual stoners/addicts/recovering addicts. But keep in mind that most of the book is in the third person, not in the first (as the first few pages would make you assume).

If things get as much as 10% as chaotic as you predict, there will be massive turmoil and the "Destroy all Clankers" party will actually be the one in charge.

This has really little to do with embrace and extend. They are not taking over an open standard or anything like that.

If anything, it's forced dogfooding, i.e., forcing their own workforce to beta-test their product.

I don't think they mention it in the CoC, but anyone can upload an ArXiv preprint listing literally anybody else as a coauthor, so it is only logical that only "confirmed" coauthors should be affected.

As I mentioned in another thread:

To be a coauthor on a preprint that you have not submitted, you have to actively "claim" it (using a password given to the author who submitted). It's on you to double-check before claiming.

I surely hope that only "confirmed" coauthors will get the ban, it's only logical.

To be a coauthor on a preprint that you have not submitted, you have to actively "claim" it (using a password given to the author who submitted). It's on you to double-check before claiming.

> some people don't like LLMs

It's not even that they "don't like LLMs". They just don't like academic fraud! If references were fabricated with a Markov chain it would be just as bad!

EXIF data enabled some pretty cool things, like PhotoSynth [1]. This stuff looks futuristic even now, ~20 years later, basically what the Metaverse could/should have been.

[1] https://www.ted.com/talks/blaise_aguera_y_arcas_how_photosyn...

But most "normal" neural networks are feed-forward, so they are guaranteed to terminate in a bounded amount of time. This rules Turing completeness right out. And even recurrent NNs can be "unfolded" into feed-forward equivalents, so they are not TC either.

You need a memory element the network can interact with, just like an ALU by itself is not TC, but a barebones stateful CPU (ALU + registers) is.