There's a legitimate use of legacy admissions. Legacy admission fosters institutional loyalty, and promotes alumni giving. The more alumni give, the more money there is for all sorts of things including scholarships. Whether legacy admissions create more good than harm seems tougher to say, and at the various colleges I've taught at, I encountered some real doofus legacy students. But there's a reasonable interest in having some form of that is worth acknowledging.

When I was young people derisively said that fusion was always 25 years away. In the last 10 years people have been saying similarly that fusion is always 10 years away. That suggests that progress has happened, but not as fast as proponents predicted/hope.

That something can happen in a lab environment is a demonstration of how it can happen in nature given enough time and lots of options. Given millions of years, there's a lot of time for things to happen. And further research will likely find even more plausible ways this could end up happening. Heck, humans made nuclear reactors, but even that turns up in nature by sheer accident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... .

A partial solution for this is to have a law that if one is getting a tax writeoff this way then one has to give up the copyright on the media and release a copy of the media in some easily accessible fashion.

In this case, there's no better disposal method.

The cost to Warner Bros to keep these on Steam should be minimal. What do they gain by delisting this way?

Pity that distros made these two gigantic bad choices recently and didn't ease up on the gas when the cliff got near.

All that, but I suspect the real issue is that freight is a lot more profitable in that hold than is baggage, so they're trying to reduce the amount of baggage by charging it out of existence.

No one gets 45 years for smuggling drugs, or for that matter, for smuggling live bodies. If you look at the list of charges, they're a damned long stretch, making it sound like he was a massive smuggling op, not someone who had the wrong tank in the back of his truck.

If you move your household from Mexico to Arizona and bring along your fridge, have you committed a crime?

Worldcoin is by itself pretty silly as ideas go. It is also pretty silly to tell them to stop doing this when people are giving them the info in a completely consensual way. If people want to give their info for some cryptocurrency, go and let them. (I don't think that Worldcoin is going to be at all successful, but I don't think Spain's choice here is going to impact that either way substantially.)

I'm... not sure. I don't know how I misread it. You are correct.

You are now doing a weird thing where you are focusing on the word "imply" rather than "show" as if that is some major difference in meaning. The use of "imply" here is simply due to the inherent limitations of any benchmarks. But please note that this is now your third claim you are making. Your first claim was that they "not disclosing what kind of a test, what criteria were benchmarked." That was shown to be wrong. Then you claimed in your second comment that "When in reality, they didn't actually tell you anything about the benchmarks. They merely told you what they called them." That was shown to be wrong, since the benchmarks in questions are not their own and are widely accessible. Now, in response, you've pivoted yet again, to make some massive deal out of the word "imply."

So 1) That's not what you said. 2) In fact, even if you had said that, it would still be wrong. The vast majority of of these benchmarks are benchmarks made by independent organizations where you can find the details of how they work without too much effort. For example, GSM-8k is available here. https://paperswithcode.com/dataset/gsm8k.

Also if one clicks through to the article, they list a whole bunch of other explicit benchmarks including some where they performed less well than the other AIs.

The summary explicitly gives examples. From the summary tests included " GSM-8k for mathematical reasoning and MMLU for expert-level knowledge." Not reading the linked article is one thing, but at least read the summary please.