Comment Re: Chief WOKE-tard Officer (Score 1, Troll) 121
I find you ideas fascinating and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
I find you ideas fascinating and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
I'm obfuscating nothing. Here's a brief to the European Commission with my name on it:
https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/...
Medical data is covered in the GDPR, cloud stuff is in the DMA, the Data Act, and hardware stuff in the Directive on Defective Product Liability. Those are all ongoing if you'd like to get involved.
There might be some things that aren't covered and maybe a CRA is necessary, but the current proposed text says you cannot publish or import software unless it follows the requirements of the CRA. So, people in the EU will be hesitant to publish software and software from outside the EU that didn't follow the CRA during the design phase will not be available to people in the EU.
Even security patches. If there software being used in the EU and it has a vulnerability, and if someone outside the EU produces a patch or an updated version of the software, then this fix will not be available to people in the EU if the author did not provide all the documentation required by the CRA! People in the EU will be stuck using known-vulnerable software because of the CRA!
The W3C has indeed done fantastic work. With the new status, will they be more involved in policy work?
The EU is working on a new regulation on standard-essential patents. The legislative procedure is advancing on the Cyber Resilience Act, which makes it difficult to publish software (and serving a webpage with javascript seems to fit into that). And there's the issue of DRM (which shouldn't have been given support in the W3C standards, but what's done is done, let's look for how to improve the situation).
If W3C will be more active in policy, I'll be looking forward to working with them!
No Bill Paxton the genius curmudgeon who went on to create Modules for Experiments in Stellar Astrophysics.
Full disclosure: Iâ(TM)m a MESA developer, and working with Bill in recent years has been the ride of my life.
Remember, FSF isn't telling you to buy these things, it's just a guide for *if* you insist on buying tech. You can always get people socks or a jumper.
FSF's guide is also for people who put a lot of value on freedom. And I hope a lot of people do. But if you want to make a small effort, another interesting list is Mozilla's "Privacy Not Included":
Maybe I'm incredibly lucky, but I'm just a no-name researcher at a mid-tier university, and I have a server with 8 A100s in it. Calling a machine with 4 A100s in it a "supercomputer" sounds like a stretch.
> decisions are generally a lot less arbitrary than people imagine. It's just
> that when someone gets suspended they tend to only post misleading
> reports about it
Strong disagree. Twitter's rules don't accomplish what Twitter says they accomplish, and the enforcement is uneven, arbitrary, unreasonable, and utterly opaque to users. I've seen countless examples of utterly arbitrary enforcement, and regularly repeated claims that perfectly normal content is somehow a violation. Not only in my case, but in many, many cases.
In this case, a woman was gleefully discussion the fact that human face mites do, in fact, have anuses, and therefore our faces are covered in face mite poo. The conversation was already about this topic - merely suggesting that we affix tiny diapers to them so we can study the poo is not hostile in anyway. This person didn't understand or like the suggestion and instead of muting the tweet or the tweet author, they used Twitter's rules and the company's pro-complainant bias to remove my ability to use the service. That's neither just nor reasonable nor sensible.
I'd suggest examining your instinct to defend the giant faceless corporation over real people, but figure that'd be a waste.
I'll take over and fix Twitter if the people there finally acknowledge that suggesting that we affix tiiiny little diapers to human face mites is not "hostile conduct" and unlock my account.
Adobe's neural filters are not 'deepfake tools,' they're tools. Blaming the makers of a general purpose tool (of any kind) for specific uses that tool is put to is pretty weak sauce. This simply is not a case of someone making a tool specifically designed for a nefarious purpose, and CEO's assertion is essentially correct.
"Star-quakes" (more accurately, the excitation of one or more internal acoustic or gravity oscillation modes in a star) are neither tsnunami-like or cataclysmic, and TFA is pure clickbait. In most stars in which they've been detected, the brightness fluctuations they cause are well below the one-part-in-a-thousand level.
They do, however, have the potential to uncover the internal structure of stars, via the technique of asteroseismology. So, the Gaia DR3 release is pretty exciting stuff -- just no need to overhype it with Michael Bay adjectives.
Full disclosure: I am a computational asteroseismologist.
"A car is just a big purse on wheels." -- Johanna Reynolds
