rusk

Another way to read this is the tech companies are stupidly bankrolling the EU by not complying with the laws of the lands (EU states voluntarily enact their own implementations of EU directions in return for a slice). That’s far too good a cash cow to pass up. Keep it coming.

Agree that this is a matter of economic viability rather than technology. Presumably somebody could just go back and resurrect the Roles Royce IP

There would be the nice side benefit of maybe having all these guys in one place, upon an experimental aviation platform.

We had Concorde - it was too expensive to operate safely.

Sounds like bag pipes to me LOL

> we'll never discover the soul

What if it reveals itself to us?

> There is no way to allow each limb to do its own thing

I can pat my head and rub my belly at the same time.

As you’d expect from the staggeringly low (by international, 1st world standards) turnout

You could use PEFT? Operating on only a subset of weights is fairly standard practice nowadays …

Surprisingly hard to expel a child, particularly in the more privileged schools … far more satisfying from the perspective of an educator if they can address the issue.

Like a reverse panopticon - a truly terrifying concept if you tease it out …

Historically we have used intelligence as a way to distinguish man from animal and human from machine. We rely upon it to determine who has our best interests at heart vs who is trying to do us in. Obviously that all changes if we invent an intelligence (conscious or not) that shares the planet with us. Through this lens the term consciousness (through a few more leaps) becomes the question of “is it capable of love and if so does it love us” and if it doesn’t, then it is a malevolent alien intelligence. If it was capable of love, why would it love us? I make a point of being polite to LLM’s where not completely absurd, overly because I don’t want my clipped imperative style to leak into day to day, but also covertly, you just never know …

I think it’s one of many that indicates the underlying issues for its adoption. It’s a 90s technology, not as much thought was given about how it would be used.

> 1 what

Cycles. I suppose you might say it’s a derivative.

How many times per second the measurement returns to the original value.

In engineering school we used to tie this directly to radians using the Euler notation pow(e, j * 2 * pi * f) where 2pif is your angular frequency expressed in radians per second!

Wait til you’ve got to copy & paste em, or see em comingled with hw addresses

Spoken like a 2007 bond trader

Indeed, I was trying to make it easier for you.

It needs an apostrophe then it makes more sense “Windows’ Subsystem for Linux”

It is a Windows Subsystem, that caters to running Linux.

It’s a functional title not an architectural one.

Setting aside that model means something different now … MDD never really worked because the tooling never really dealt with intent. You would get so far with your specifications (models) but the semantic rigidity of the tooling mean that at some point your solution would have to part way. LLM is the missing piece that finally makes this approach viable where the intent can be inferred dynamically and this guides the implementation specifics. Arguably the purpose of TDD/BDD was to shore up the gaps in communicating intent, and people came to understand that was its purpose, whereas the key intent in the original XP setting was to capture and preserve “known good” operation and guard against regression (in XP mindset, perhaps fatefully clear intent was assumed)

Yet another side is arrogant little babies coming on board and making a big steaming mess of things because they thought they could do things better.

Waaaaahhhhhhhh

I love that book but isn’t it nearly 30 years old?

My point was, that there’s plenty of ancient things we plod along with, even though they’re not perfect. Many have tried to improve upon them but few have stuck.

> this is how Windows NT has had async IO

Pretty much what I was thinking of. My understanding from reading some commentary in this area is the Linux implementation is yet a little botched due to how it handles waiting threads.

More advanced APIs which allow more fine-grained interaction between system and application IF you can figure out how to use them

> switch Windows over to a Linux foundation.

Though it seems to be sneaking in through application space on a WinNT foundation

> We need both

Both can devolve into empire building. We need both to be transparent and open.

> We really are using a 1970s era

1970 Anno Domini no less

Believe it or not it’s a question on the pre-clearance form for travel to the US: ”are you or have you ever been a member of a terrorist organisation” - I always wondered what the rationale for that was

In Arthur C Clarke’s 2001 a space odyssey, in the book, he describes a flat handheld device that is used for reading the New York Times. He can’t remember the exact details but the ergonomics he describes perfectly encapsulate the tablet devices we have today. I’m pretty certain he wrote it before the 1969 moon landing.

> there's no reason to capitalize that

> Not clear why you think

> Citation?

Are you okay?

> 1. Never connect the TV panel itself to the internet. Keep it air-gapped. Treat it solely as a dumb monitor.

I gave up on this. I turned off a lot of the smart features but couldn’t justify not being able to use the apps.

It’s pretty dystopian my TV spying on me for sure but they’ve already got my phone, my internet history and presumably some pretty good spy satellites

If a drone has my name on it I’m done for either way