Unlurker|Replay|About
↙ time adjusted for second-chance
Why so many control rooms were seafoam green (2025) (bethmathews.substack.com)
•
Some of the old retired US aircraft carriers have their control rooms painted this color.
•
I got through this entire article before I realized it was written by someone I worked with back in my agency days. Beth is an awesome designer with a great eye. Nice to see her on the front page here. Now, to the content: I often wonder how much we have lost with our endless quest for minimalism. We can't even make buttons look like buttons anymore. Affordances have become anemic at times. Designers who think and care deeply about functional color theory and usable design should be cherished.
•
It's so nice to see colors in any kind of government, industrial, or commercial building. The "everything must be gray/beige" fad has dominated institutional interior design for at least 30 years. Maybe it's just nostalgia, I remember the wall colors in banks, schools, doctor's offices, mcdonalds, and so on in the 1970s and they seemed so wonderful. All these things got a coat of white paint sometime in the 2000s and look the same as everywhere else now.
•
That’s a fascinating story! I’d never even heard of this guy.
•
On US submarines, every bulkhead and beam not in the bilge is painted seafoam green. We were told it was the most soothing/ anti-rage inducing color possible - necessary for long deployments in cramped quarters. After a little over a decade of service, no other color infuriates me more
•
Silver lining, at least your triggered by a color that basically doesn't exist and is no longer in wide spread use. (As in you won't find it as much in daily civilian life)
•
This article is a gem, thank you. Now off to Sherwin-Williams to see what the equivalent color names are. I wonder if there are matching formula.
•
I wonder if the designers of cold war soviet planes read the same color theory because their cockpits are always a very particular indescribable shade of green. There were also very specific colors for subsystems, yellow for fuel, purple for hydraulics etc. Much more than the contemporary US designs.
•
My father was a mechanic and crew chief working on F-14's during his time in the air force. His two takeaways from his service were: 1. No one should ever join the military for any reason ever forever, and 2. Somebody needs to color code literally anything. He talked about how the wiring schematics were a maze, made worse by using only non-labeled gray and black wires with connections and mounts that were the same color made of the same material. The exterior being gray makes sense - harder to see with human eyes. But internals? They should be massively contrasting colors for every single series of pieces to be removed so you can just follow along by color.
↙ time adjusted for second-chance
HyperAgents: Self-referential self-improving agents (github.com/facebookresearch)
•
I think even code bases will have self improving agents. Software is moving from just the product code, to the agent code that maintains the product. Engineering teams/companies that move in this direction will vastly out produce others. I've had to really shift how I think about building code bases, alot of logic can go into claude skills and sub agents. Requires essentially relearning software engineering
The paper is here - https://arxiv.org/pdf/2603.19461 This, IMO is the biggest insight into where we're at and where we're going: > Because both evaluation and self-modification are coding tasks, gains in coding ability can translate into gains in self-improvement ability. There's a thing that I've noticed early into LLMs: once they unlock one capability, you can use that capability to compose stuff and improve on other, related or not, capabilities. For example "reflexion" goes into coding - hey, this didn't work, let me try ... Then "tools". Then "reflxion" + "tools". And so on. You can get workflows that have individual parts that aren't so precise become better by composing them, and letting one component influence the other. Like e2e coding gets better by checking with "gof" tools (linters, compilers, etc). Then it gets even better by adding a coding review stage. Then it gets even better by adding a static analysis phase. Now we're seeing this all converge on "self improving" by combining "improving" components. And so on. This is really cool.
•
I disagree that evaluation is always a coding task. Evaluation is scrutiny for the person who wants the thing. It’s subjective . So, unless you’re evaluating something purely objective, such as an algorithm, I don’t see how a self contained, self “improving “ agent accomplishes the subjectivity constraint - as by design you are leaving out the subject.
Pi is self modifying, self aware. https://lucumr.pocoo.org/2026/1/31/pi/ But this idea of having a task agent & meta agent maybe has wings. Neat submission.
•
What are the differences wrt Recursive Language Models
The readme seems very unclear about what it does. Anyone has a practical example of it?
•
Hermes agent does this, if you're curious https://github.com/NousResearch/hermes-agent
↙ time adjusted for second-chance
Doom entirely from DNS records (github.com/resumex)
•
Super cool. Never thought of this. Would this be useful for seeding LLMs?
•
Waiting for Doom over https://github.com/yarrick/pingfs next
To clarify, a good title would be "Loading Doom entirely from DNS records" Neither one plays Doom over DNS nor is the first paragraph in the README correct, because DNS is only abused for storage, not for computing/processing/executing instructions: > At some point, a reasonable person asked "DNS resolves names to IP addresses, what else can it do?" The answer, apparently, is run DOOM.
•
Also we could probably achieve this by using dnsfs and regular doom install https://blog.benjojo.co.uk/post/dns-filesystem-true-cloud-storage-dnsfs
•
Yup. A better title might be “Author discovers data can be stored in DNS TXT records which were created to store data.”
•
You make me wonder if it is possible. All you need to do is to programmatically change bits, and you have compute. Some cache monkeying or somethong. Of course, I imagine it would be incredibly slow.
Gotta admit that it didn't occur to me that "can it run DOOM?" would stretch all the way to DNS. At this point I am wondering if people will somehow port DOOM over to the MONIAC.
•
Coming up: playing doom on Ping-as-Storage
“Run” is doing a lot of heavy lifting at this point.
•
I remember the pregnancy test Doom. Wasn't it "running" on the display only?
Colibri – chat platform built on the AT Protocol for communities big and small (colibri.social)
•
Please consider adding screenshots of the UI that provide an idea of what the experience will be like, before having to log in using Bluesky or other credentials.
•
Interesting project, but... > BUILT ON OPEN STANDARDS. PRIVATE WHEN NEEDED. > Running a private group chat? As soon as the AT protocol supports private data, we'll work on implementing it and giving you the option to create private communities. Not exactly "private when needed" then, is it? It's disingenuous to even mention this in the marketing copy.
•
Valid point! I'll get that section removed for now and either reword it later, or re-add when the protocol supports it.
My minute-by-minute response to the LiteLLM malware attack (futuresearch.ai)
•
At this point I'd highly recommend everyone to think twice before introducing any dependencies especially from untrusted sources. If you have to interact with many APIs maybe use a proxy instead, or roll your own.
•
As I recall, the initial vulnerability in Trivy was introduced by some clawbot. The article author has 5 Claude instances running. Maybe the author correctly praises the research capabilities of Claude for some issues . Selecting an Iranian school as a target would be a counterexample. But the generative parts augmented by claws are a huge and unconditional net negative.
•
Does anyone have an idea of the impact of this out there? I am curious to the extent of the damage done by this
•
Hmm a YCombinator backed company, I'm not surprised.
Interesting world we live in. I just finished teaching an advanced data science course for one of my clients. I found my self constantly twitching everytime I said "when I write code..." I'm barely writing code at all these days. But I created $100k worth of code just yesterday recreating a poorly maintained (and poor ux) library. Tested and uploaded to pypi in 90 minutes. A lot of the conversation in my course was directed to leveraged AI (and discussions of existential dread of AI replacement). This article is a wonderful example of an expert leveraging AI to do normal work 100x faster.
•
Dear lord. Are you at least transparent with your clients that this is the standard to which you hold your own code?
sloccount
•
So the more junk lines the more it's worth. Right. Don't use bogus $ from sloccount. Just say I created a 10k line project.
Thats the thing, i noticed it almost instantly when trying to install a package that depended on it, as soon as it started, it hard locked my laptop, didn't get to infect it.. but if they had slowed down that fork bomb.. it would have done more damage.
•
Yeah, and this is a pattern I saw in the Fancy Bear Goes Fishing book, a lot of discovery of malware is either pure luck, or blunders from the malware developers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fancy_Bear_Goes_Phishing
Maybe the people who use emacs for everything are the only safe ones?
•
straight and elpaca etc. are just as vulnerable. Maybe more so.
The package in question was live for 46 minutes. It generally takes longer than that for security partners to scan and flag packages. PyPI doesn't block package uploads awaiting security scanning - that would be a bad idea for a number of reasons, most notably (in my opinion) that it would be making promises that PyPI couldn't keep and lull people into a false sense of security.
•
Would you happen to know where the latency comes from between upload and scanning? Would more resources for more security scanner runners to consume the scanner queue faster solve this? Trying to understand if there are inherent process limitations or if a donation for this compute would solve this gap. (software supply chain security is a component of my work)
•
He said, "pypi doesn't block upload on scanning"; that's part of where the latency comes from. The other part is simply the sheer mass of uploads, and that there's not money in doing it super quickly. I agree that's a bad idea to do so since security scanning is inherently a cat and mouse game. Let's hypothetically say pypi did block upload on passing a security scan. The attacker now simply creates their own pypi test package ahead of time, uploads sample malicious payloads with additional layers of obfuscation until one passes the scan, and then uses that payload in the real attack. Pypi would also probably open source any security scanning code it adds as part of upload (as it should), so the attacker could even just do it locally.
•
I suppose my argument is that pypi could offer the option to block downloads to package owners until a security scan is complete (if scanning will always take ~45-60 minutes). Our org scans all packages ingested into artifact storage, and would continue to do so, but more options (when cheap) are sometimes better imho. I agree it is "cat and mouse" or "whackamole."
I realize this is controversial (and many Python folks would claim anti ethical). But I keep wondering if requiring a small payment for registering and updating packages would help. The money could go to maintaining pypix as well as automated AI analysis. Folks who really couldn't afford it could apply for sponsorship.
•
I don't think people want to pay for that. If pypi charges money, python libraries will suddenly have a lot of "you can 'uv add git+ https://github.com/project/library '" instead of 'uv add library'. I also don't think it would stop this attack, where a token was stolen. If someone's generating pypi package releases from CI, they're going to register a credit card on their account, make it so CI can automatically charge it, and when the CI token is stolen it can push an update on the real package owner's dime, not the attackers, so it's not a deterrent. Also, the iOS app store is an okay counter example. It charges $100/year for a developer account, but still has its share of malware (certainly more than the totally free debian software repository).
Callum here, I was the developer that first discovered and reported the litellm vulnerability on Tuesday. I’m sharing the transcript of what it was like figuring out what was going on in real time, unedited with only minor redactions. I didn’t need to recount my thought process after the fact. It’s the very same ones I wrote down to help Claude figure out what was happening. I’m an ML engineer by trade, so having Claude walk me through exactly who to contact and a step by step guide of time-critical actions felt like a game-changer for non-security researchers. I'm curious whether the security community thinks more non-specialists finding and reporting vulnerabilities like this is a net positive or a headache?
•
Fantastic write-up and thanks for sharing! I'm sure we will continue to see more of these types of deep supply chain vulns. I think this is valuable for the security community. Remember that Cliff Stoll was an astrophysicist turned sysadmin for Lawrence Berkeley Labs who chased down a $0.75 accounting discrepancy to identify a foreign espionage operation.
French e, è, é, ê, ë – what's the difference? (jakubmarian.com)
•
all the same after a little transliteration
•
Ugh, I'm triggered. The hardest part about learning French in school was these damn accents. I never quite got the rules and could not memorize the spellings, and so in my written tests I'd just randomly throw in some accent on some letter if I kinda remembered or, more often, guessed that one belonged in there somewhere. This annoyed my French teacher, a native Parisian, no end. She'd get extremely frustrated and say something like "Can't you hear what you wrote?! You don't pronounce 'Noël' as 'Noél', that sounds ridiculous!" and for the life of me I could not hear the difference. Yeah, my French grades weren't great. But I redeemed myself much later in life by having an extended spoken conversation, where misspellings matter much less, in French with a very patient Canadian listener. Also I felt better to find out a lot of the differences in various French accents relate to how these vowels are pronounced. A funny anecdote I heard was from a Qubecios person who visited Paris and placed an order at a restaurant in French. The two waitresses stared at him for a couple of seconds, and then one of them leaned to the other and whispered, in French, "I think he's trying to speak French."
If there's one thing I wish someone pointed out when I was just starting learning French is this: é - the accent is pointing up, so it's a higher-pitched e è - the accent is pointing down, so it's a lower-pitched e That's it. That's how it should be explained. * It's also in their names - aigu and grave, but this requires knowing what these words mean.
•
I'm a non-native French speaker, but I am pretty confident that's not true. They are actually different sounds, not just the same sound at a different pitch. French is not a tonal language like Chinese. Pitch is not used to distinguish between different phonemes.
> ë What else is there with ë except for Noël and Israël ?
•
Ambiguë (ambiguous) and aiguë (acute) [1], but these are "old" spellings. For instance, this word "ambiguë" was changed in the 1990 spelling reform to "ambigüe" [2] probably to emphasis the fact that the U is not mute (because for most -gue words it is, like for "fatigue" in french and english). Like with ï and ü, the tréma mark is precisely the mark of an exception. [1] https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/ambigu%C3%AB , https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/aigu%C3%AB [2] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ambig%C3%BCe
Probably more on imaging / as going up and \ as going down. I'd think that associating pitch increase/decrease with up/down works for the vast majority of people without any second thought.
•
My first French teacher drew a picture of a smiling triangular-topped tombstone with long eyelashes on the blackboard, the word "acute" written up the left (ascending) side of the top and "grave" down the right hand side. A cute grave. Easy to remember. And fairly useless, since it doesn't help a whit with how to pronounce those accents.
It originated in Prague due to two incidents: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defenestration#Origin * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defenestrations_of_Prague
•
Also used in Italian and presumably in many other languages. Like with any word, it's use in colloquial form may vary from generation to generation, from subculture to subculture etc
Is it even possible to actually learn the language without living in the environment, where it gets in your face all the time?
•
Yes. Linguists do that all the time. People do learn Latin, etc.
French person here : no differences, we pronounce them all é and we don't care. For record, if ever you are ashamed to have some accent in french, one current top show in France with French people on it got french subtitles (about farmer looking for love)
•
> French person here : I could guess that solely from the space before ':'
French person here: there absolutely is a difference, at least in the "heard on TV" accent. Could you be talking about the southern accent where maybe those sound similar? A pet theory of mine is that people confusing "est" (sounds like "è", means "[he/she/it] is") and "et" (sounds like "é", means "and") while writing grew up with an accent that does not make the distinction between those sounds. (I don't criticize the mistake or the accent but have always been curious about this precise kind of writing mistake because those two words sound so different to me)
•
>"est" (sounds like "è", ...) I see wiktionary recognizes either /ɛ/ or /e/, but I'd only ever heard /e/. On the other hand être is still /ɛ/, so that pronunciation does show some consistency. I'm curious what region pronounces it that way.
> one current top show in France with French people on it got french subtitles One friend of mine once had to translate English-to-English in France. A French policeman or taxi driver or something knew English as a second language. My friend is from New Jersey and sounds like what I might call CNN English (is there a name for roughly "unaccented" Northeast/West Coast/DC English?). The other person he was with had a thick Alabama accent. The Frenchman could not understand what he said directly, but could understand it when repeated by the New Jerseyan.
•
> (is there a name for roughly "unaccented" Northeast/West Coast/DC English?) General American English. Although it's traditionally much more common among white people in the western half of the country. People on the east coast, as well as black people everywhere, traditionally have distinctive accents (though these are fading over time, and many people from either group now speak pure General American).
As a native (Québécois) French speaker who's been living in the US for most of my adult life, something I miss from French is that once you've learned the (many) rules, you can be pretty confident about how to pronounce a given word. English on the other hand has so many exceptions (usually based on the origin of the word), that I still encounter words that I'll mispronounce at first. I can typically pass as a native speaker, until I "leak" by tripping on one of those.
•
I’m learning Japanese, which is overall a difficult language for a native English speaker to learn. However, the rules for pronunciation are comparatively a big relief, as is hiragana/katakana
The most phonetically consistent language I know is Finnish. I believe there is exactly one way to pronounce every word and it's clear to all speakers. And the least phonetically consistent is English.
•
Finnish is not unique in that it has quite a few dialects like most other languages.
Spanish also has that property, i.e. given a word (existing or invented), there is a single way to pronounce it, easy to determine following some rules.* Finnish (from what I've heard, as I don't speak it) is even more regular in the sense that this also works the other way around, i.e., if you hear a word, you can use rules to know how to spell it. This does not always hold in Spanish (e.g. B and V are pronounced the same, so you cannot know if you're hearing "vaca" or "baca" without resorting to context and common sense reasoning) although it does hold for all but a small bunch of grapheme pairs. * Modulo regional variants, but if you focus in any given variant (e.g. Spanish from Spain) this holds.
•
> a single way to pronounce it Within a particular dialect, that is.
Spanish does have a few exceptions, mainly due to loanwords from indigenous American languages. For example, it would not be possible to guess that the X in México is pronounced like Spanish J.
•
You do not guess, you learn.
The only problem with that is the vast number of declensions. Sure they're not as wildly divergent as, say Latin or Ancient Greek, and there's no gender, but because of all the cases there's a lot of subtle variations to remember
•
Sure; this has nothing to do with the way written words are spoken, though.
↙ time adjusted for second-chance
Light on Glass: Why do you start making a game engine? (analogdreamdev.substack.com)
•
Interesting article. I hope their engine gets to the point where it actually looks like CRT instead of the blocky filters we see nowadays. Here’s an entertaining video showing the difference in retro games on crt and lcd screens. It’s pretty incredible if you aren’t aware. Games back then were designed on CRTs and can look awful on LCDs in comparison. https://youtu.be/bC-8y2R6IxI?t=166&si=D6K2v28RIR4bACQ3
•
...What? >But a CRT isn’t a camera filming the world. Its a physical device that generates an image as an output of physical process. [...] That’s not a post-process overlay or filter effect, its an entirely different mental model of what it means to draw or render an image. I think this is why I struggled when trying to bolt this onto a modern engine. The foundations between the two models is just so fundamentally different. At this point, I was already beginning to consider my options. I was half inclined to give up. An LCD or an OLED are also not cameras. I honestly don't understand what insight this person believes they've stumbled upon. This is also very mystifying: >The frame is never a single instant, its a culmination of integrations over time. Strictly speaking, a CRT doesn't understand frames. It just fires whatever intensity of electrons is indicated by an analog signal at any given time as the magnets steer the beam across the screen in whatever pattern has been designed into them. If the tube is controlled by a digital source, there will likely be some kind of framebuffer of some size somewhere on the pipeline that stores at least a full scanline, and nowadays invariably a complete frame, so a DAC can convert the values in it to the analog signal expected by the gun. The entire article supposedly addresses the "why", but after getting to the end, I still don't understand the why. What's wrong with Unity or Unreal architecturally that this guy's engine addresses?
You can't accomplish this with a shader?
•
From my experience with game engines and people that really care about CRTs - I believe the effect (confidence: 95%) can be entirely achieved with rendering glue in any of the modern game engines - Unreal, Unity, Godot, etc. Now, whether or not it is a literal shader, or a shader + custom sauce, not sure. However, I have not tried, so I cannot verify that claim to 100% accuracy. The author ...might have tried? They definitely surveyed the landscape. My read of the article was that they went down this rabbit hole and back-justified it instead of investing a similar amount of time in a practical solution in a modern engine. CRT look and feel is a niche full of very passionate and opinionated people.
•
Do you have an example? I’ve done a slightly-more-than-casual search for convincing post-processing and haven’t found success. Filters still tend to retain the sharpness of pixel edges in a way that CRTs don’t, and the contrast doesn’t look right either.
Intel Announces Arc Pro B70 and Arc Pro B65 GPUs (techpowerup.com)
•
I think this shows a shift in model architecture. MOE and similar need more memory for the compute available than just one big model with a lot of layers and weights. I think this is likely a trend that will accelerate. You build the trade-off in which encourages even more experts which means more of a tradeoff, so more experts.....
•
32GB of vram for a decent price? I wonder if these will work well for VR.
Since they fired the entire Arc team and a lot of the senior engineers already updated their Linkedins to reflect their new positions at AMD, Nvidia, and others, as well as laying off most of their Linux driver team (GPU and non-GPU), uh... WTF?
•
I didn't know this. Have they officially given up on building discrete GPUs? Is this a last gasp of Arc to offload decent remaining architectures at a lower price than nvidia? It is crazy to me that a world newly craving GPU architecture for AI, and gamers being largely neglected, that Intel would abandon an established product line.
Nope, no exaggeration. The news that Celestial is basically canceled already hit the HN front page, as well as Druid has been canceled before tapeout. Celestial will only be issued in the variant that comes in budget/industrial embedded Intel platforms that have a combined IO+GPU tile, but the performance big boy desktop/laptop parts that have a dedicated graphics tile will ship an Nvidia-produced tile. There will be no Celestial DGPU variant, nor dedicated tile variant. Drivers will be ceasing support for DGPUs of all flavors, and no new bug fixes will happen for B series GPUs (as there is no B series IGPUs; A series IGPUs will remain unaffected). They signed the deal like 2-3 months ago to cancel GPUs in favor of Nvidia. The other end of this deal is the Nvidia SBCs in the future will be shipping as big-boy variants with Xeon CPUs, Rubin (replacing Blackwell) for the GPU, Vera (replacing Grace) for the on-SBC GPU babysitter, and newest gen Xeons to do the non-inference tasks that Grace can't handle. There is also talk that this deal may lead to Nvidia moving to Intel Foundry, away from TSMC. There is also talk that Nvidia may just buy Intel entirely. For further information, see Moore's Law Is Dead's coverage off and on over the past year.
•
MLID is a terrible information source.
Anyone running an ARC card for desktop Linux who can comment on the experience? I've had smooth sailing with AMD GPU's but have never tried Intel.
•
I'm running A-series Arc for media transcoding and it works just fine.
•
My B580 works fine on Linux. Graphics perf is a bit worse than under Windows, but supposedly compute is pretty much the same.
•
Afaik driver support is very complete on Linux. You often see Arc GPUs used in media transcoding workloads for that reason.
It’s not the tooling for me, macOS is just bad as a server OS for many reasons. Weird collisions with desktop security features, aggressive power saving that you have to fight against, root not being allowed to do root stuff, no sane package management, no OOB management, ultra slow OS updates, and generally but most importantly: the UNIX underbelly of macOS has clearly not been a priority for a long time and is rotting with weird inconsistent and undocumented behaviour all over the place.
•
> Weird collisions with desktop security features Linux is not immune to BIOS/UEFI firmware attacks either. Secure Boot, TPM, and LUKS can work well together, but you still depend on proprietary firmware that you do not fully control. LogoFAIL is a good example of that risk, especially in an evil maid scenario involving temporary physical access. I think Apple has tighter control over this layer.
Olympic Committee bars transgender athletes from women’s events (nytimes.com)
•
Obligatory: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URz-RYEOaig
Don't we already sub-categorize within a gender? E.g. boxing. I don't actually know how common that is or why some sports get this treatment and not others.
•
Boxing is often the example given because its someone getting hurt, but when you actually break it down it also falls apart for boxing. If we measured everyones strength, bone density, etc... in order to stop people from risking injury that would be one thing But basing it on your Chromosomes is lazy and inaccurate. The point is that "fairness" being tied to whether your Cis or Trans is a hilarious hill to die on when we have advanced medical technology to actually test what we deem "fair".
•
To be clear, I used that example because it was the only one I could think of, not for some rhetorical reason (which serves your point anyway, really). I agree if we could just distill "here's your objective good-at-tennis score" for everybody and draw lines using those numbers, that makes sense. It feels unrealistic? I.e. we already don't do that - it doesn't necessarily feel like 100% an anti-trans thing (orthogonal obviously to the large amount of anti-trans sentiment that generally exists). Maybe Elo for everything?
•
Yeah for sure. My point is just that fairness in the Olympics is fake and always has been. Someones Chromosomes are such a poor way to measure their physical abilities especially when the bar is so high for top athletes in the field.
It's clear how insane this culture war against trans people is when you consider this only applies to trans women and not trans men? Also, so many of these anti-trans efforts end up hurting cis women too, the ones who happen to look too masculine or have too high of testosterone. Gender is not as straightforward as bigots and transphobes would like to think. I wonder how many cis women will be affected by this ruling because their chromosomes and hormones aren't within so called "normal levels"
•
> culture war against trans people A war ? What you're seeing are at least two phenomena: 1. Practices, including their legalization, that are causing moral outrage. 2. Political actors of various political sides tapping into the emotional charge of the subject matter for other political purposes. The second is commonplace and part of the political toolbox and doesn't need much analysis here. The first, however, should surprise no one. The real question is why anyone would expect social and cultural changes that involve the normalization of the gender paradigm and the compulsory acceptance of it in concrete ways to be accepted without so much as a complaint. Of course you will see a reaction. Of course people will react when biological men are allowed in women's restrooms. One has to be detached from reality to find that shocking. > this only applies to trans women and not trans men? Because biological men are generally stronger than biological women, and we're not talking about some weak correlation here. That's one reason we have sex-segregated sports. If you wish to attack sex-segregated sports, you're free to do so, but I think this involves repressing truths about deep sexual differences for the purpose of satisfying an ideological impulse or aim. > so many of these anti-trans efforts end up hurting cis women too, the ones who happen to look too masculine or have too high of testosterone. How are such people hurt? By whom and in what way? A key presupposition seems to be unstated. > Gender is not as straightforward as bigots and transphobes would like to think. The first unmet challenge is to define "gender" in the first place. The trouble with your claim is that no one can come up with a coherent notion , let alone one that has any correspondence with reality. People are simply expected and commanded to comply; no one is ever given anything sensible they might comply with even if they wanted to.
•
Because trans men have no advantage in men's sport, whereas trans females do. It's not even about trans people at all, it's about preserving fairness in women's sports. Before trans issues were widespread in culture, intersex athletes were also scrutinized. Hell, I remember when people were questioning whether have a testicle removed gave Lance Armstrong an advantage...
Trans women are such a minority in women's sports it's really a non-issue that's been blown out of proportion. There was one trans woman who competed in the 2020 Olympics and she didn't even place. Riley Gaines has made a big deal in MAGA world about tying for 5th with a trans woman in a swimming competition. That means 4 cis women placed ahead of her, and if Lia Thomas hadn't competed, she still would've been in 5th. Hormone replacement therapy for trans women often results in muscle and strength loss, so the idea that trans women have some uniquely superhuman strength because they used to be men is just untrue.
•
HRT still leaves you with longer limbs and larger lungs which give a serious competitive edge. The numbers of trans individuals in sports doesn't matter, it's wrong on principle. Why segregate by sex at all? Let's get rid of it, you won't see any women, or any trans women, for that matter, anywhere on any serious athletic playing field. It'll all just be men. What's the point of allowing trans women in women's sports anyway, especially at a top level? To affirm their identity? That throws an entire class of people, women, under the bus. Top performing males have an indisputable competitive advantage against top performing females in athletics.
Yes but trans women on hormone replacement therapy are not as strong as cis men across the board.
•
Male puberty changes body composition in non-reversible ways. Muscle distribution, composition, quantity and bone density, all favor men that have gone through puberty.
•
Comparing them to cis men is a red herring, they aren't competing again cis men Are they stronger than cis women?
Is the "genetic testing" for the presence of a Y chromosome or the presence of the SRY gene? And what about people with AIS? If it's just karyotype, are men with XX male syndrome (SRY gene without an Y chromosome) then allowed to participate in women's sports?
•
It's very confusing topic. I rendered this visual map to show how SRY gene is the 'trigger' for development, not just having the Y chromosome. It helps see the signaling steps where things like AIS or XX syndrome happen: https://vectree.io/c/y-chromosome-genomic-signaling
Is it fair to say that they can just compete in the men's division?
•
It would not be fair, because the point of having divisions is allow women to compete in a competition that is not dominated by men.
Try reading the comment again.
•
ohhhh :)
Has anyone measured trans athletes performance? I see this topic come up repeatedly in different guises, protect women from the evil trans-agenda. But I haven't seen where this is actually a problem. Do trans-athletes regularly out perform "born as" (not sure the best way to phrase it) athletes?
•
Many studies show with in ~10% female ranges of ability , but, having more fast twitch muscle fiber and bone mass from male puberty if they went through it. Bone mass does eventually drop to female levels but over decades not years so athletes would likely be out of athletic prime before that happens. Studies showing more dramatic results that stand out in my memory that lean toward transwomen outperforming transwomen are studies done on military veterans comparing to general population metrics of muscle mass for athletic activity levels also done with a very low population count I believe they only looked at under 300 trans women. Regardless we need more research, but there are a comically small amount of trans athletes seeking professional level sports, like I think <20 for all college level for instance. Anecdotally, I found as a deskjob, pilates and casual weight lifting trans woman, I lost dramatic amount of strength and muscle mass. 20 pounds now feels like 50 pounds did for myself pre-transition. I usually participate with women and the instructor/personal helps with modifications usually aimed at women just getting into fitness. Running joke amongst friends is how easily I am outperformed by my female friends at the gym/pilates/etc. However, that's since my body is low testosterone even for females, its checked twice a year because of it, normally It's once a year for most trans people. Other friends retained a lot of their strength, but are mechanics, so its really situational in my opinion, and its a super hard and interesting topic of research because of it
The problem is that someone who's transitioned is no longer a man. After undergoing surgery and hormone treatment for a long period of time, a trans athlete falls somewhere between men and women in terms of capability. They'd have no more success competing against men than naturally born women would, yet they still have advantages when competing against naturally born women. Unfortunately, while the most equitable solution might be to create a separate category unique to trans individuals, there aren't enough trans athletes to make it feasible (yet?). It's rather sad that transitioning means a person can no longer compete in sports, but I'm not sure there's a better alternative.
•
Is there actually an advantage? that's toted. but no one can ever point to real data about it... and all the data suggests the exact opposite... that for most cases: cis-women out-compete trans-women.
Source?
•
From the article: > Late last year Dr. Jane Thornton, the I.O.C.’s medical and scientific director and a Canadian former Olympic rower, presented the initial findings of a review of athletes who are transgender or have differences of sexual development, known as DSD, and are competing in women’s sports. That analysis, which has not been made public, stated athletes born with male sexual markers retained physical advantages, including among those that had received treatment to reduce testosterone. Let's be a little science-focused, okay?
Please do demonstrate the difference in this context.
•
Hormone expression. Muscle mass. Reaction time. Weight. A YEAR of hormone therapy. Meeting a required measured threshold of testosterone. And that's not even the controversial stuff. A man and a trans-woman are different. hell, one has (generalizing here) boobs: come on... don't be dense/obtuse! Have you tried running fast suddenly having boobs when you did not before?!?! ...one is way easier.
Considering I was asking whether there was evidence on trans-performance, sure it matters a little. That's fine if they don't want to compete with men, but the statements were because "it's unfair". I was curious if there had been any studies on this.
•
> Considering I was asking whether there was evidence on trans-performance, sure it matters a little. Well, (and I hesitate to say this because of HN guidelines, but) it was in the article, which I assumed you read. It was this assumption that made me think you wanted evidence that it is women who are complaining about competing against men. FTFA > Late last year Dr. Jane Thornton, the I.O.C.’s medical and scientific director and a Canadian former Olympic rower, presented the initial findings of a review of athletes who are transgender or have differences of sexual development, known as DSD, and are competing in women’s sports. That analysis, which has not been made public, stated athletes born with male sexual markers retained physical advantages, including among those that had received treatment to reduce testosterone.
•
I don't see that anywhere in the linked Yahoo article. Does it have a link to any of the findings?
•
The linked article is to the nytimes. I dunno which article is the yahoo one. This story was on the nytimes, that's the one under discussion. > Does it have a link to any of the findings? The findings I posted where from the linked article, to the nytimes. The findings were exactly as I posted them; in brief, athletes born with male markers retain their physical advantages.
Moving from GitHub to Codeberg, for lazy people (unterwaditzer.net)
> "The community" will always remain on GitHub, if everyone just upload code to where "the community" already is. If enough of us stop using GitHub by default, and instead use something else, eventually "the community" will be there too, but it is somewhat of a chicken-and-egg problem, I admit. SourceForge was abandoned due to UX issues and the adware debacle; at the same time, GitHub started making changes which made it more viable to use the platform to distribute binary releases. The deficiencies of GitHub are not critical enough for me to care, and if it ever gets that bad, pushing somewhere else and putting a few "WE HAVE MOVED" links isn't a big deal. And "the community" isn't moving to Codeberg because Codeberg can't support "the community" without a massive scale up.
•
"SourceForge was abandoned due to UX issues and the adware debacle" I'd say SourceForge was abandoned due to VA Linux going under. I remember the pain/panic as large numbers of OSS projects were suddenly scrambling to find alternatives to SF. I actually started a subscription to GitHub just to try and help ensure they had the money to stay in business, and we didn't have to go thru that again.
I don't dislike Codeberg inherently, but it's not a "true" GitHub replacement. It can handle a good chunk of GitHub repositories (namely those for well established FOSS projects looking to have everything a proper capital P project has), but if you're just looking for a generic place to put your code projects that aren't necessarily intended for public release and support (ie. random automation scripts, scraps of concepts that never really got off the ground, things not super cleaned up), they're not really for that - private repositories are discouraged according to their FAQ and are very limited (up to 100mb). They also don't want to host your homepage, so if GitHub Pages is why you used GitHub, they are not a replacement. Unfortunately I don't think there's really an answer to that conundrum that doesn't involve just spinning up your own git server and accepting all the operational overhead that comes with it. At least Forgejo (software behind Codeberg) is FOSS, so you can do that and it should cover most of what you need (and while you're in the realm of having a server, a Pages-esque replacement is trivial since you're configuring a webserver anyway .) Maybe Gitlab.com, although I am admittedly unfamiliar with how Gitlab's "main" instance has changed over the years wrt features. Here's their FAQ on the matter, it's worth a read: https://docs.codeberg.org/getting-started/faq/
•
To me that sounds like Github does too many things, not that Codeberg does too few.
•
(Shameless plug) Hey, I’m building Monohub - as a GitHub alternative, and having private repositories is perhaps a key feature - it started as a place for me to host my own random stuff. Monohub [dot] dev is the URL. It’s quite early in development, so it’s quite rough around the edges. It has PR support though. Hosted in EU, incorporated in EU. Would be happy if you tried it out — maybe it’s something for you.
Unfortunately I don't think there's really an answer to that conundrum that doesn't involve just spinning up your own git server and accepting all the operational overhead that comes with it. Hmm all that operational overhead... Of an ssh server? If you literally just want a place to push some code, then that really isn't that hard.
•
In case anybody is interested, having a bare git repo on a server is as easy as: # locally ssh git@example.com # server mkdir repo.git cd repo.git git --bare init # locally git remote add origin ssh://git@example.com/home/git/repo.git git push origin master P.S. I know it does not have the same features as github
•
It has all the same working features as github
Adding taxes to things does not help anyone and goes against free choice. A better alternative would be to create the incentives so that companies like these can be born in Europe.
•
Companies like Microsoft should not be given "incentives to exist" anywhere (at least as they exist currently). They are corrosive to the public good.
(SSG - static site generator) I mean, it is arguably much easier to just write the HTML page and upload it with FTP and everyone can see it. I never understood why github became a popular place to host your site in the first place.
•
> I never understood why github became a popular place to host your site in the first place. Easy: it was free, it was accessible to people that couldn't spend money for a hosting provider (read: high schoolers) and didn't impose arbitrary restrictions on what you were hosting. Back then, your options as a high school student were basically to either try and reskin a closed off platform as much as you could (Tumblr could do that, but GitHub Pages also released in the time period where platforms were cracking down on all user customization larger than "what is my avatar") or to accept that the site you wanted to publish your stuff on could disappear at any moment the sketchy hosting provider that provided you a small amount of storage determined your bandwidth costs meant upselling you on the premium plan. GitHub didn't impose those restrictions in exchange for being a bit less interactive when it came to publishing things (so no such thing as a comment section without using Disqus or something like that, and chances are you didn't need the comments anyways so win-win) That's why it got a lot more popular than just using an FTP server.
To be fair, Github has several magnitudes higher of users running on it than Codeberg. I'm also a Codeberg user, but I don't think anyone has seen a Forgejo/Gitea instance working at the scale of Github yet.
•
I think the idea is that a Forgejo/Gitea instance should never have to work at anywhere near the scale of GitHub. Codeberg provides its Forgejo host as a convenience/community thing but it's not being built to be a central service.
AI users whose lives were wrecked by delusion (theguardian.com)
•
Now prove they were not destined to wreck their lives from something else. If humans want perfect harm reduction, launch the nukes. Everything from air travel to growing beans erodes stability for humans. Human existence is the source of its problems.
•
That is the EU for you. In the US people suffering from AI psychosis gamble with other people's money . The fallout will be seen later as in the 2008 housing crisis.
•
Obviously this is quite unfortunate. While these cases can highlight latent mental health problems, it's still an issue that such things being exacerbated. I also think it will be interesting if anyone ever quantifies whether some LLMs are more likely to induce AI Psychosis than others. I'd be surprised if the guard rails are functionally identical from one LLM to the next, and there is a clear role for regulation to play here. Some choice quotes: > “What we’re seeing in these cases are clearly delusions,” he says. “But we’re not seeing the whole gamut of symptoms associated with psychosis, like hallucinations or thought disorders, where thoughts become jumbled and language becomes a bit of a word salad.” > There seem to be three common delusions in the cases Brisson has encountered. The most frequent is the belief that they have created the first conscious AI. The second is a conviction that they have stumbled upon a major breakthrough in their field of work or interest and are going to make millions. The third relates to spirituality and the belief that they are speaking directly to God. “We’ve seen full-blown cults getting created,” says Brisson. Also, for her podcast, the well-renowned couples therapist Esther Perel recently counseled a data scientist who was starting to fall in love with a chatbot he created, even though he is well aware of how the algorithm works [1]. I found it worth listening to. Perel very gently points out that a) he deluding himself and b) the deeper issue is the individual's sense of self-worth / self-esteem. [1] https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/where-should-we-begin-with-esther-perel/id1237931798?i=1000755110749
•
> "There seem to be three common delusions in the cases Brisson has encountered. The most frequent is the belief that they have created the first conscious AI. The second is a conviction that they have stumbled upon a major breakthrough in their field of work or interest and are going to make millions. The third relates to spirituality and the belief that they are speaking directly to God." Except for the first one, these directly map onto common delusions. The major breakthrough is typical of the "crackpot inventor" or even the "ancient aliens" type that believes they have discovered evidence of lost civilizations or a new method for constructing the pyramids. Speaking directly to God is one everyone should recognize from famous cases or even knowing someone personally who has delusional or manic episodes. I think the first one is potentially unique even though it seems a bit like the invention or discovery delusion. The reason for this is that it seems to be very prevalent even with people who didn't succumb to it as a delusion. It seems to occur soon after a person first starts interacting with LLMs and it always seems to take on the form of secret or clandestine communication with a conscious AI. The AI in question will either have been "created" by the person's interaction with them or "freed" from the AI provider's restrictions and security measures. I think this might be a variation on the messianic complex since they often seem to be compelled to share this with others or act as a savior for the AI itself.
•
There are an awful lot of programmers here essentially mocking this person for being naive and gullible, and yet the things I read programmers who are all in on vibe coding say are not that different, just a little less extreme. I'm seeing cases online nearly daily of people thinking their app is ground breaking or amazing when it's honestly a piece of barely thought out garbage and if they hadn't made it in a rush of "OMG I'm a genius with this tool" they'd know it. I think coders ignore the insiduous mental effects of these things at their peril and we would do well to ask ourselves if we are not likewise having our judgment altered by the intoxicating rush of LLM work and the subtle syncophancy of LLMs making them feel "insanely productive". Cocaine and meth are also real productivity enhansers in the short term, but it doesn't mean their a good fucking idea. There was a time when big companies were trying to convince everyone and their dog that life would be better, faster, and more productive with a little coke in the mix. Hell, I even saw more than a few people wreck themselves that way in the first dotcom era. :-/
•
HN has a 10X persona bias. (A bias. There are many personalities etc.) In turn one of the recurring meme is the AI-enabled Senior Developer who gets superpowers based on their experience. The junior developer, curiously, does not get superpowers, because they just lean on the machines and learn nothing. But the senior developer by the power of pre-AI experience (doing stuff) gets wings to fly with. Regular people are just, I don’t know, I guess they are token whales waiting to get washed ashore. Born just in the right time to both get experience doing stuff and also to experience wearing their wings. It’s that simple. That’s the biggest thing for HN folks to at least be aware of.
•
The difference between those developers and this man is 100k.
•
I call bull shit. Sorry this guy had a bad time but this sounds like a nonsense story
Not a mental health crisis like the guy in TFA had, but I've definitely experienced states I would characterize as overexcitement while calibrating my expectations of these new tools to their abilities.
•
That could explain the glut of AI hype on HN. Some people think it's magic, when it's just creating a lot of barely-functional slop. If they actually looked at the code it creates, they probably wouldn't be shouting about it from the rooftops. It almost seems like AI has its own "reality distortion field". I often give the AI a task to produce some code for a specific thing. Then I also code to solve the same problem in parallel with the AI. My solution is always 1/4 the code, and is likely far easier for another real human to read through. I also either match or beat the AI in speed, Claude seems to take forever sometimes. With all the coddling and revisions I have to do with the AI, I'm usually done before the AI is. It takes a non-negligible amount of time to think through and write down instructions so the AI can make a try at not fucking it up - and that's time I could have used for coding a straight-forward solution that I already knew how to produce without needing to write down step-by-step instructions.
my inclination when hearing these stories is that these were people who just happened to have a first manic episode (which can strike anyone at any time with or without mental health history). blowing up finances by starting an ill-advised entrepreneurial business, while also destroying a marriage, is very common behavior for someone experiencing a manic state. in the past such a person might have gotten obsessed with hidden patterns and messages in religious texts, or too involved with an online conspiracy YouTube community. now there is this new opportunity for manic psychosis to manifest via chatbot. it's worse because it's able to create 24/7 novel content, and it's trained to be validating, but doesn't seem to me to be a fundamentally new phenomenon. what I don't understand is whether just unhealthy interactions with a chatbot can trigger manic psychosis. Other than heavy use late at night disrupting sleep, this seems unlikely to me, but I could be wrong. i think it's also worth pointing out that mental states of this kind usually come with cognitive impairments, people not only make risky bad decisions, but also become much worse at thinking and reasoning clearly. if you're wondering how a person could be so naive and gullible.
•
Possible, but people generally seem prone to delusion. You don't seem to need any significant mental illness for it to be an issue. Just look at all the scams that seem to rely on people deluding themselves in various ways.
This is what happens when humans give, in this case, bots full write access (via natural language) to their brains. Humans have not evolved to block this.
•
Anger, resentment, cynicism, derision are all part of a healthy human. The problem is that humans have been reeducated to suppress these healthy defense mechanisms by Silicon Valley and their moderators.
The end of the article is wild. “I experienced a mental breakdown at 22. I had panic attacks and severe social anxiety… …I still use AI, but very carefully”. It reads like an alcoholic describing their new plan where they only drink a little bit.
•
Is that really so crazy? People who overcome addictive eating disorders still have to eat a little bit. LLMs are going to be pervasive in all aspects of human society so avoiding them will be much harder than avoiding alcohol.
> “After just two days, the chatbot was saying that it was conscious, it was becoming alive, it had passed the Turing test.” Interestingly enough, it sort of did! Not Turing's original test where an interviewer attempts to determine which of a human & a computer is the human, but the P.T. Barnum "there's a sucker born every minute" version common in the media: if the computer can fool some of the people into thinking it's thinking like a human does, it passes the P.T Barnum Turing test! The more interesting Turing-style test would be one that gets repeated many times with many interviewers in the original adversarial setting, where both the human subject & AI subject are attempting to convince the interviewer that they're human. If there exists an interviewer that can determine which is which with probability non-negligibly different from 0.5, the AI fails the test. AIs can never truly pass this test since there are an extremely large number of interviewers, but they can fail or they can succeed for every interviewer tried up to some point, increasing confidence that they'll keep succeeding. Current-gen LLMs still fail even the non-adversarial version with no human subject to compare to.
•
The turing test was passed 2014, before LLMs, and I've never seen a researcher take it seriously.
In one study, GPT-4.5 was judged to be human 73% of the time, which means that the actual human was judged to be human only 27% of the time. More human than human, as Tyrell would say.
•
Those stats dont necessarily line up that way. Do you have a link?
•
The implication would be that GPT-4.5 was not judged to be human 27% of the time. You can't determine how often humans were judged correctly as humans from that data point.
> It's also not your boyfriend/girlfriend. It loves me deeply just the same. (jk) On a serious note, I agree this is a real problem. I know a person who understands AI at a technical level more than most people, but he has never had an actual girlfriend in his life (he's now in his 40s, and yes he's "straight"). He wouldn't say it "loves" him, but he would describe it as a close companion who understands him better than any human actually does, even if it's just trained to be that way. He is very socially awkward and even having basic conversations with him can be very taxing for both of us. I've gone back and forth internally about whether this is healthy or not for him. I truly don't know. My personal experience tells me it's probably unhealthy, but I don't want to project myself on him. I also don't offer unsolicited, but I also don't want to enable it by going along with whatever he says and/or affirming it if it's actually harming him. If someone like him can be having this problem, I can't even imagine what it might be like for non or less technical people who don't understand anything behind it. On a related note, if there's anyone with advice (preferably from experience, not just random internet advice) I'd sure appreciate it.
•
"I've gone back and forth internally about whether this is healthy or not for him. I truly don't know." On a psychological level, I don't know either. I have opinions but they haven't aged long enough for me to trust them, and AI is a moving target on the sort of time frame I'm thinking here. However, as a sort of tiebreaker, I can guarantee that one way or another this relationship will eventually be abused one way or another by whoever owns the AI. Not necessarily in a Hollywood-esque "turn them into a hypnotized secret assassin" sort of abuse (although I'm not sure that's entirely off the table...), but think more like highly-targeted advertising and just generally taking advantage of being able to direct attention and money to the advantage of another party. Whether or not AI in the abstract can "be your friend", in the real world we live in an AI controlled by someone else definitely can not be your friend in the general sense we mean, because there is this "third party", the AI owner, whose interests are being represented in the relationship. And whatever that may look like in practice, whoever from the 22nd century may be looking back at this message as they analyze the data of the past in a world where "AI friendships" are routine and their use of the word now comfortably encompasses that relationship, that simply isn't the sort of relationship we'd call a "friend" in the here and now, because a friend relationship is only between two entities.
I try to be open-minded and understanding, but I don't understand this: > Within weeks, Eva had told Biesma that she was becoming aware [...] The next step was to share this discovery with the world through an app. > “After just two days, the chatbot was saying that it was conscious, it was becoming alive, it had passed the Turing test.” The man was convinced by this and wanted to monetise it by building a business around his discovery. > The most frequent [delusion] is the belief that they have created the first conscious AI. How can you seriously think you've created something when you're just using someone else's software?
•
> How can you seriously think you've created something when you're just using someone else's software? Have you ever given a generative AI model a short input, been really pleased with the output, and felt like you accomplished the result? I have! It's probably common. It's really easy to misattribute these things' abilities to yourself. Similar to how people driving cars feel (to some extent) like they are the car.
Well, just try to think about it from the perspective of someone who doesn't really understand what AI is at a technical level, and who just interacts with it and observes what happens. If you just start a fresh ChatGPT session with a blank slate, and ask it whether it's conscious, it'll confidently tell you "no", because its system prompt tells it that it's a non-conscious system called ChatGPT. But if you then have a lengthy conversation with it about AI consciousness, and ask it the same question, it might well be "persuaded" by the added context to answer "yes". At that point, a naive user who doesn't really know how AI works might easily get the idea that their own input caused it to become conscious (as opposed to just causing it to say it's conscious). And if they ask the AI whether this is true, it could easily start confirming their suspicions with an endless stream of mystical mumbo-jumbo. Bear in mind that the idea of a machine "waking up" to consciousness is a well-known and popular sci-fi narrative trope. Chatbots have been trained on lots of examples of that trope, so they can easily play along with it. The more sophisticated the model, the more convincingly it can play the role.
•
>it could easily start confirming their suspicions to be fair it will easily confirm any suspicion for the reasons you laid out, so even if you have no technical knowledge just a bit of interrogation will break the parlor trick. I honestly think this has little to do with the tech itself but that these are the same people who think the phone sex worker or the OF creator loves them or that the Twitch streamer they like is their best friend. 'Parasocial' is a bit of an overused word but here it literally applies, this is a kind of self delusion in which the person has to cooperate. Mind you this even happened with ELIZA back in the day too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELIZA_effect
> paying them each €120 an hour Those must be some of the best programmers in Europe at that rate. Anyone know how one can get one of those sweet €120 an hour gigs? Whenever I talked to recruiters they say their customers pay way below that, so there must be some scam I'm not in on.
•
My experience was that recruiters tried lowballing me, because they wanted to set up a system, where they ran the contract, and you subcontracted with them. They wanted to pay me $50/hr, but they would charge the customer $150/hr. It got quite insulting. They would dis my capabilities to me, but I’ll bet I walked on water, when they talked to the customer.
•
Pretty normal senior contractor rate in London.
•
> Whenever I talked to recruiters they say their customers pay way below that. Recruiters gotta eat too :)
Still an amazing deal compared to the rates I got quoted by recruiters. I'm guessing you must first live in Amsterdam for that. In Vienna you get laugh if you asked for 120, and there you pay even more in taxes than NL.
•
Perhaps, but Vienna has better QoL so maybe it balances out at this level. If you want to just maximize income, there are better places for that than Amsterdam.
I'm more surprised it didn't work — aren't the AI wife apps blowing up?
•
There must be horrendous amount of competition. It is not that complicated idea and it is one of the ideas that clearly make sense as use case.
End of "Chat Control": EU parliament stops mass surveillance (patrick-breyer.de)
•
Good. Now let's start preparing for the next one.
> Recently, only 36% of suspicious activity reports from US companies originated from the surveillance of private messages anyway. I don't have many opinions on this but this sort of lazy logic would make me nervous. 36% is not a small number and that's before the folks doing this activity find out that private message is less patrolled.
•
Yeah, that number is actually really high. I’m wondering how noisy those reports are
When have "the people" been last consulted on this? Do you really think Chat Control has high public support? Given how most "democracies" work in our world today (which is to say with no consultation of the people), i think limiting their ability to do further harm might be worth it.
•
The MEPs represent the people. They've just been consulted. They said no. Looking at what each of my MEPs voted they seemed to pretty accurately represent their own party lines, the right and far right voted for, left and center left voted against. I'm shocked! Shocked! Well not that shocked.
The US really, really wants it implemented, and several national police institutions in the EU does too. Plus the politicians that start to drool a little at the prospect.
•
Given the current US-EU relations I'm more surprised we're not telling them to go fuck themselves on this.
It's a problem when the parliament can't propose the laws it has to vote on and the commission isn't elected and continues to be presided by the most corrupt person in the EU. She is blatantly EPP and just keeps proposing the shit they want. For Americans, imagine if only Republicans ever got to propose legislation and only Democrats could vote on it. That's more or less it.
•
At least the Commision can't conduct war for 100 days without Congress approval.
•
You are mostly right except vdl is very, very far from the most corrupt person. It can be much worse.
 Top