I think a thing people overlook here is that it does, actually, have complicated enterprise features, in an uncomplicated way. Chromebooks, and the Googlebook which is a direct successor, and even Android phones, are intended to be managed centrally using whatever-they-call-Google-Apps-these-days (Google Workspace? Not sure.) The fact everything's web based makes it, theoretically, much easier for system administrators - Active Directory configures a lot, but admins still have to set up either complicated start up scripts, or go to people's PCs to install software. Google Apps just means enabling OAUTH apps. Presumable this has integrations with the Play Store too.

The idea is essentially most organizations can give most of their employees Google/Chrome Books to work on. A small minority, smaller by the minute given Crostini et al, will not be able to use it, but they are easier to manage individually, and they can still run Chrome to access the applications everyone else uses.

The Chromebook model, of which this is a successor, is entirely about what organizations want. More so than Windows and Active Directory. Ask an average system administrator and they'll reluctantly, because they generally like open computers on a personal level, say they prefer managing a network of Chromebooks. Less headaches. Less fixing people's computers. Less having to use other people's computers. Easy recovery from laptops not working. No viruses. etc.

Maybe the version that isn't Gemini enhanced will be more popular, but I gather they're pricing that at $1,798.

Did you read the summary? Or even the rest of the paragraph you quoted from?

> [T]he system itself is decentralised. Member states run it through issuers they designate, and the proofs live on the user's phone. There is no central EU database of ages or of who verified whom... A user proves their age once to a nationally designated issuer — a body vetted by the member state, which can be a digital ID provider, a bank or a post office. At a restricted site, the app certifies that the user is above the required age threshold. The platform receives only a yes-or-no response. Issuance and verification are handled by separate entities. The proof provider is not told which service the proof was used for. Each proof works only once, preventing cross-service tracking. No identity documents or biometric data are retained. The code is open-source, allowing independent scrutiny.

You know, I'm bothered by the age verification fetish, especially in an age with a resurgence of fascism, but if they're going to do it, this is the way to do it.

I'd just rather they not do it.

I don't think it is common knowledge in the way you describe, no. They're not talking about reptilian vs not-reptilian, and while it's true that's a pop-psy thing, it's not a "The brain is physically made up of this", merely a "The logic the brain uses to determine responses to things are..." thing.

So what? If Apple cannot obey the law in a country, it needs to stop operating there. At best it should create a mostly independent division that's under local laws.

The only reason this affects Apple is because Apple chooses to make it affect Apple.

Probably "Mind your own business".

I don't agree with UK policy here, but the US telling other countries what they're allowed to legislate when it affects foreign entities is a little rich given its laws have literally impacted, for example, EU officials investigating Israeli government war crimes.

I wouldn't call it "Thinking" Archie...

Do tell, how is $5K per head giving workers ownership or control of the means of production?

Or are you another propagandized dick who's so used to misusing the term that you're another person who'll vote against things like socialized healthcare because sOcIaLiSm without knowing what the consequences of either are?

Word to the wise: either you're lying, or you've been lied to. A movement that embraces trade unions and the cooperative movement is not defined as "the government doing stuff".

You are why we can't have nice things.

Bill Clinton was a 1990s Democrat, he was THE 1990s Democrat, and he said the exact opposite of all of that. One of the reasons he was embraced as the great new Democratic hope was his whole "I can't do anything about the jobs leaving America but sure I'll fight for you" meaningless twaddle that somehow got the NYT and other corporatist news having orgasms.

If your developers are incapable of making errors, then I'd like to know what species they are.

We have this crap every time Rust comes up, that somehow there are perfect C programmers out there who never introduce memory safety bugs. You know who I wouldn't trust to ever write a C program I use in production? Someone who thinks there are perfect C programmers out there who never introduce memory safety bugs. There is no such thing as a perfect programmer.

I look at projects like curl because I have huge admiration for how they're managed. They've made memory safety bugs throughout, and spend a lot of time actually trying to figure out how to prevent them in the future. And they do still make them! But over time they've created processes that at least reduce the number considerably, going as far as to rewrite standard C library functions to prevent common errors.

THAT is the type of C programmer I admire. Not someone who claims that they've never made a memory safety bug. Those people are liars. But people who actually take the time to find ways to reduce common types of error, including memory safety.

You know what those people do a lot? They look into alternative languages that have the features they want but solve whole classes of error. That's why many are excited by Rust. That's why C++ has had dramatic improvements over the last 10-20 years so devs who restrict themselves to a language subset can write safe code.

C is a bad language. It arguably was in the early 1970s. It should never have become the defacto standard for applications in the 1980s and 1990s (and we'd have seen less idiocy from ANSI about UB had it not been.) And the number of legitimate applications for C is reducing by the minute.

The only anti-rewrite argument that has some legitimacy when it comes to the GNU userland tools are that rewrites inherently introduce new bugs, while the GNU userland is for the most part well understood at this point. But... the counter to the latter is the environment changes. It's not been 30-40 years of code audits, it's been 30-40 years of "Does this command line flag do what is expected", with little thought given to mallocs without frees and frees without mallocs, and buffer overflows that weren't noticeable on an Intel 386 but are when you compile 64 bit code on an ARM. There have been times nobody cared about a bug because it didn't matter, but suddenly it does because that executable happens to be called by an IMAP daemon and you can use it to create and execute a local file.

The rewrite will introduce some bugs. Some will be severe. But there will be likely fewer bugs in the new tools in 5 years than there still will be in the GNU userland equivalents at that point. Rust itself will catch memory safety errors. And type safety errors. And a few other classes of error. And code will be more readable to a newer generation of programmers brought up in an environment where while(*x++=*y++);, while readable to you and me, might as well be Perl in terms of readability.

Training these models is incredibly expensive. In fact it's so expensive that there is no viable economic model to do so. As such, their options are either to drastically slow down the amount of new models trained or to go bankrupt. This is just a nice whitewashing of that. It remains to be seen if even using their models can be profitable, but we know that with the cost of training the next one they can't be.

I have the opposite, can always get in with IPv6, but IPv4 results in me getting a lot of loops.

I suspect what you're seeing (and what I'm seeing) are both coincidences and reCAPTCHA doesn't care. From what I've read, reCAPTCHA only cares about IP addresses when it suspects you're using a server as an egress point (suggesting a hacked server), and blocking IPv6 would be insane given how few IPv6 servers there are, and what proportion of the consumer Internet uses IPv6 addresses by default.

Because it's marketing.

Generative AI is not unsafe in the way GenAI advocates are claiming. It's unsafe in general - it's causing education deficits, it's causing headaches for companies that have adopted it who no longer have business knowledge over how their own companies operate, it's slamming websites with bogus requests and causing the web to go offline, and when the web isn't offline people are discouraged from visiting websites by "AI summaries" that supposedly answer the questions that you'd normally go to the websites to get answers for. Also the false information given by "AI summaries" has probably caused a problem or two.

But in terms of taking over nuclear missiles and launching them at capital cities, and all the other ludicrous genAI claims made over the last few weeks by employees of OpenAI and Anthropic suggesting they plan to exterminate humanity, no, it's a fucking word predictor on steriods, it just doesn't have that power.

OpenAI and Anthropic are spreading this lie not because anyone who works for those companies believes it, but because a real AI, the type of thing that people are expecting something called "AI" to actually be, would be capable of reasoning that humans are the enemy (etc), and might go Skynet on humanity. If they say "Nah, you're all fine, what we have here is spicy autocomplete", then their potential for an IPO goes down the toilet.

These are dishonest companies that are doing everything that they can to pump up a tool with marginal utility in order to run off with the money before it becomes revealed that, no, their tech is unsustainable and was never as good as the cultists claimed anyway.

That's why politicians are talking about kill switches. They're being duped by Altman and friends into thinking that's necessary.

> Any programming language needs the equivalent of Rust's "unsafe"

Not really, no.

> Without it would be impossible to do any input or output.

Have you ever used any programming languages other than C, C++, etc? The important thing is that the language itself implements an interface between the OS and programs written in that language. In addition to that, most usually have an ABI that can be used to glue assembler libraries to the language - this is not the equivalent of "unsafe", because it's not part of the language, and a person downloading an application can see right away that it includes external libraries that interface with it.

Unsafe is in Rust because... well, Rust is designed to try to make memory safety attractive to devs who traditionally don't like being told what to do or that their favorite language sucks. Which is why, for example, advocates go to great lengths to claim Rust doesn't have garbage collection when, actually, it does, it's just not mark and sweep. Rust is as much about public relations and trying to get people to stop assuming they have to sacrifice safety for efficiency and low level access as it is about producing a useful programming languages.

And, unfortunately, part of that PR is to say "Look, we even have an "unsafe" keyword so you can get rid of (some of) our restrictions on you for those rare times you actually need it", and the group Rust is aimed at, of course, go "Oh, I can do this with a 2% speed up if I use unsafe, so I'm going to do the unsafe version, that's what makes Rust great" *insert Naked Gun facepalming scene here*.

I like Rust. But let's not pretend "unsafe" is a positive thing, or that most languages need it. Rust needs it because of its intended audience, but plenty of languages don't let the code itself be unsafe. Some have an unsafe keyword, some allow linking with unsafe assembler packages, and some... honest... don't have either, and your code is only unsafe if your compiler/interpreter is.

> Broadcast networks have to give the different major parties equal time.

The rule that this applies to late night talk shows is literally months old and has no basis in any new legislation. It was introduced by the FCC on a whim basically because they didn't want Colbert to interview the same person as Kimmel.