No problem. I also conflated the "controlling" stake into my response - that wasn't an attempt to sneak a stawman past you.

There has been an excess of such examples in the news. Military leaders "investing" hours before mass bombings or deployment of blockades and such. The potential for abuse is obvious. So much of it would be defacto abuse if the fed didn't just say this is all fine.

Honestly, I don't care if they help farmers. I do care about our farmers, and I believe there are loads of things we can and should be doing to help them (like not selling them off to foreign interests). However, I don't think having them gamble on their futures is how we should be handling our crops. That's not going to sell me on the value of polymarkets. And regardless, being able to come up with a single example that is served well by such markets does not necessarily mean such markets are therefore good.

Gambling, rigged BS, and farmers hedging futures. Is there anything else that falls in that third category?

And you knew that "other legacy systems" also exist, right? Those systems making use of MS SQL Server, or Microsoft Entra ID (IE: Active Directory), or hybrid networks using that other 40% of VM's that are running Windows, etc..

Asked another way, what subset of that 60% of VMs on Azure running Linux are deployed from a company that isn't touching Windows or other legacy systems?
The Linux support is so they don't lose that segment.

Embrace: Fedora [CHECK]
Extend: Adding MS/Azure specific stuff to a VM image with no installer option (and no source?), so you must include it if you use Azure Linux 4.0.
Extinguish: Can you run your Kubernetes nodes in Azure on anything other than Azure Linux? Today, you can run other stock releases as VM's; Will you be able to in the future? How long until some of their changes are upstreamed? OK, so you commit to Azure Linux for dev and deployment, then get a new Apple laptop - why can't you run the Azure Linux VM there?

Don't be too harsh. I was just reading that the start bar can now be moved to the left or right! Not only that, but you can RESIZE it!?!?! Mind blowing stuff.

Hard disagree. They're in a perfect position to embrace, extend, extinguish. What would lead you to believe otherwise?

This Azure Linux 4.0 is only being distributed as an Azure VM image, and a plan to do a WSL VM image. You can't go install it where you see fit. They already did some extinguishing right there (It's a Fedora downstream, but can't be installed on bare metal nor on a Linux based hypervisor nor on a Mac nor via other VM software on Windows). And what else have they jacked into that distro or cut out?

Being a Fedora downstream may give some nice feels, but I suspect that was simply to save them the time and effort of maintaining the base.

Agreed, and furthermore, on what grounds are we saying that powerball is something we should be protecting?

OK... so no stake = gambling; Stake in it makes it a valid prediction market somehow. And then...

So if you have a controlling stake in it (or insider knowledge - I'm adding that condition here), then the game is rigged and you shouldn't be allowed.

That means the prediction markets are made up of:
* lots of gambling
* lots of rigged BS
* extremely rare cases where someone has a stake in a prediction market, but has no insider knowledge about it, nor do they have a controlling stake in it.

It's hard to think of many cases that fit that last one. Farmers betting on crop futures based on the weather maybe? Sorry... I mean "trading" on crop futures, LOL.

It's the age of the grift. Not hidden at all anymore - just business as normal grifting.

This is for medical use; not recreational. He's clawing back control, not giving more permission. Meanwhile, GOP in the house is blocking funding for that very same rescheduling (as of April 2026), and GOP leaders and legislatures in the states are working to repeal elements of the legalization laws and weakening reforms.

What progress have the GOP actually accomplished on the pot legalization front? Thoughts and prayers?

Excellent point - IE: GitHub ALSO has a backup of all these credentials in their backups and mirrored across who knows how many places, all of which could still be leaked.

Sorry, but there's no way to sell this as a good decision.

If you pass it the same inputs, it products the same output. The point is that it is deterministic. If you couldn't figure that out, you shouldn't be calling people stupid.

Then we disagree on whether or not LLM's are nondeterministic.

However, your definition contradicts the example. You noted nondeterminism is, "when it is physically impossible to predict the output of a system from its inputs in advance," but you then say an LLM with a random seed is nondeterministic. Is the random seed somehow not one of its inputs? If I know the inputs, I can predict the output 100% of the time, assuming the random seed (which is an input passed as part of the call) is considered one of the inputs (because it is).

Once again, you prove that, "This CANNOT be overstated. LLMs are software, they execute on machines that are entirely deterministic and do not work unless they are."

And if LLMs are deterministic, then they can not be considered conscious for those whose definition of consciousness includes a requirement for being nondeterministic. Note, that is NOT the same as saying consciousness is or is not determinism; It's saying that it depends on it as one of the attributes of consciousness.

You're asking for a definition while claiming you are not quibbling over definitions. All you are doing is quibbling over definitions.

Why are you wasting my time?
Did I make such a demand? Are you referring to this request, "Please provide your definition of consciousness"?
What claims (about consciousness) did I make? Perhaps you're confusing other replies in this thread?

As to why, it's right there - I have an interest in the definition of deterministic behavior. I believe that's something we, as people, should be able to agree upon, whereas consciousness tends to be more philosophical, akin to trying to define the "soul". Your last reply has confirmed that your understanding of deterministic behavior, while similar, differs from my own to the point that you consider an LLM with a random seed to be nondeterministic, yet one with a static seed to be fully deterministic.

I would offer that something that is fully deterministic can not exhibit free will. Apply that as you see fit to the above.

Words have meanings. You are refusing to define a word that is at the heart of your question. If you have no interest in defining consciousness, then you should have no interest in whether or not determinism has anything to do with this. To quote you, "This is completely worthless."

FWIW, I have no interest in defining consciousness either, but I do have an interest in the definition of deterministic behavior.

OK... so now you are quibbling about the definition of deterministic and nondeterministic, and I happen to disagree with you.

THIS is why I provided the example of passing Ollama a static seed - it is entirely deterministic. You seem to refuse to accept that point, and that's the sort of thing that gets people yelling, "This CANNOT be overstated. LLMs are software, they execute on machines that are entirely deterministic and do not work unless they are. Non-determinism is literally simulated in AI. This must be said over and over.", as dfghjk had stated.

We cannot proceed to explain how that relates to consciousness if we can't even get past agreeing on what nondeterminism is.

Right. That's how definitions of terms works. If I say the color "Orange" is defined by light with wavelengths between two certain frequencies, and that green can not be orange because it is not between those, how is that worthless? What other value is there to a word?
You may provide your definition of consciousness so we can discuss it within your terms, but you "have no interest in defining consciousness". What is your problem with how others are defining it?

Ah, the common refrain when one has no ground upon which to stand.

Claiming something (trans) doesn't exist when it clearly does is an extraordinary claim. The burden is on you/him. Trans people exist that recognize themselves as trans, which is self evident to them. That goes to the fundamental "I think therefore I am" level. To claim they are not is going to need more than a swarmy, "no, you prove it!"

Please provide your definition of consciousness. If you can't define it, then what's the point of your replies?

FYI, I made so such correlation. Someone claimed LLM's are nondeterministic. I simply provided evidence to the contrary. Can you at least agree, or disagree, on whether LLM's are nondeterministic?

Apparently, some people consider nondeterminism to be a requirement for consciousness. If that is part of its definition, then the question of whether or not LLM's are deterministic is quite important. If your definition of consciousness isn't the same as theirs, then you must right those definitions before you can have a meaningful discussion. So, what definition do you use?

In all practicality, yes. Look up the past competitions. The LLMs can easily pass the Turing test. Here's a blurb from Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test):

One of the methods that helped older attempts was to pretend to be a young child. Imagine chatting with an actual child and an LLM instructed to behave like a child - could you tell the difference?