𝙲𝚑𝚊𝚒𝚛𝚖𝚊𝚗 𝙼𝚎𝚘𝚠

The closest would be PayByBank, which basically just uses the bank’s own instant payment systems. Or stuff like Tikkie would also be similar.

Taler is a kind of wallet, Wero is a payments system. Different functions.

Even forums that might seem harmless carry potential risks, such as where adults come into contact with child users.

Wait until the government finds out they’re gonna have to age-restrict playing outside. What a genuine bone-dead stupid take.

The idea that A42(7) is stronger than A5 is not that broadly supported. A42(7)'s wording implies a stronger commitment to “assistence”, whereas A5 seems to rely on states militarily retaliating when one of them is attacked, as if they themselves were attacked.

So even if A42(7) implies a greater obligation to assist, the kind of assistence is left nebulous, so there may not be an obligation to militarily assist. With A5, military assistance and the use of armed forces is explicitly mentioned, even if the exact length of the obligation to provide it is less clear.

Regardless, from these debates we have seen that most countries seem to believe that A5 should be used for military defence in case of a military attack, whereas A42(7) can be used for other types of attacks, e.g. terrorist attacks.

Remember there was a pretty big uproar when Greece merely suggested that they could invoke A42(7) against Turkey. So even if in theory you end up concluding that A42(7) is stronger, reality might disagree.

Most Nazis historically were.

Apparently the reason was to make these anti-corruption agencies more efficient. But Zelensky will now propose an additional bill to secure that no interference can happen.

See his full statement here: https://t.me/s/V_Zelenskiy_official

I personally haven’t had to use a chromium browser for anything yet since my swith to Firefox. Only to test a render bug in chromium that Google hasn’t bothered to fix in over 9 years for a case that works correctly in every other browser.

I mean it’s a valid concern. He’s also nowhere near the first to voice it. I attended a presentation from a Microsoft exec who explained that Microsoft had already developed very powerful voice mimicking technology, well ahead of anything public at the time. It required only a few seconds of speech before it could fully replicate your voice. But their ethics board or whatever stopped them, due to the massive fraud risks. Nowadays I think they’ve adapted the tech to voice recognition used in Teams instead.

Of course, MS wasn’t the only one working on this and other people have since published these solutions, so the cat’s out of the bag now.

Polls have repeatedly shown that the Israeli population is majority supportive of their government’s actions in Palestine.

Does he actually have a diagnosis or are you making that up or assuming things?

That’s applying existing solutions to a different programming language or domain, but ultimately every single technique used already exists. It only applied what it knew, it did not come up with something new. The problem as stated is also not really “new” either, image extraction, conversion and rendering isn’t exactly a “new problem”.

I’m not disputing that LLMs can speed up some work, I know it occasionally does so for me as well. But what you have to understand is that the LLM only remembered similar problems and their solutions, it did not at any point invent something truly new. I understand the distinction is difficult to make.

You’re referring to more generic machine learning, not LLMs. These are vastly different technologies.

And I have used them for programming, I know their limitations. They don’t really transfer solutions to new problems, not on their own anyway. It usually requires pretty specific prompting. They can at best apply solutions to problems, but even then it’s not a truly generalised thing, even if it seems to work for many cases.

That’s the trap you’re falling into as well; LLMs look like they’re doing all this stuff, because they’re trained on data produced by people who actually do so. But they can’t think of something truly novel. LLMs are mathematically unable to truly generalize, it would prove P=NP if they did (there was a paper from a researcher in IIRC Nijmegen that proved this). She also proved they won’t scale, and lo and behold LLM performance is plateauing hard (except in very synthetic, artificial benchmarks designed to make LLMs look good).

Well the thing is, LLMs don’t seem to really “solve” complex problems. They remember solutions they’ve seen before.

The example I saw was asking an LLM to solve “Towers of Hanoi” with 100 disks. This is a common recursive programming problem, takes quite a while for a human to write the answer to. The LLM manages this easily. But when asked to solve the same problem with with say 79 disks, or 41 disks, or some other oddball number, the LLM fails to solve the problem, despite it being simpler(!).

It can do pattern matching and provide solutions, but it’s not able to come up with truly new solutions. It does not “think” in that way. LLMs are amazing data storage formats, but they’re not truly ‘intelligent’ in the way most people think.

Completion is not the same as only returning the exact strings in its training set.

LLMs don’t really seem to display true inference or abstract thought, even when it seems that way. A recent Apple paper demonstrated this quite clearly.

Normally speed checks take into account that the car’s speedometer and the speed camera are off by a bit, always in favour of the driver. So whilst the violation might be 38 in 30, the actual speed was likely a little bit higher (eg 40-45).

Chargebacks are incredibly expensive, yes.

According to Krafton’s statement the remaining employees are getting their bonus though.

That’s not specific to having a constitution. Judges in the Netherlands for example also cannot do a judicial review to determine the constitutionality of any passed laws. And that’s with a written constitution. There’s also no supreme court. The closest thing is the Raad van State (the “state council”), which evaluates all laws on proportionality, constitutionality, and executability, and then advises the government what to do with a law. It’s convention that that advice is followed, but it’s not required.

There’s still a judicial challenge happening. And just because the UK doesn’t have written constitution doesn’t mean there’s no constitution at all. Most of it is even written down, just not in one place.

Not sure that matters too much, frogs in the US are boiling fine too. The constitution can be brushed aside just as easily.