Ecosia, which I've been using for over a year, and Qwant. Both source from Bing and Google as well whilst they continue to expand EUSP (European Search Perspective), a search index built by Ecosia and Qwant and based in Paris.

Ecosia and Qwant both European search engines. Both are currently in the process of developing EUSP (European Search Perspective), a search index built by Ecosia and Qwant, based in Paris, so they have to rely less on Bing and Google Search.

It's a way of reframing sloppy practices as a signal to your investors that your software has become powerful. Most of the horror stories about AI showing signs of becoming hyperintelligent are coming from the companies themselves, which should tell us something.

While the energy source of wind and solar are free, building and maintaining the plants is not free.

If all they were building were a single 100MW data center, sure: renewables would be cheaper to build. But they evidently are planning a major campus that will consume most of the plant's 615 MW output over the next 25 years.

A solar installation, in a favorable location, capable of supplying 600MW around the clock (with battery backup) would have to be roughly 1800MW in capacity. It would be among the largest inthe world, on the order of ten thousand acres in size at a build cost of maybe 2 billion. The battery backup system to ensure 99.9% uptime would be 9x the size of the largest li-ion grid storage system ever built, and set you back on the order of 4-5 billion dollars.

While it's probably cheaper to go renewable than build a *new* nuclear plant, if you can reactivate and one for just two billion that looks like a bargain, if you have a use for all that power. Inability to save money by load following is the financial Achilles' heel of this generation of reactors, but if you have a guaranteed customer for most of your output, years in advance, that's as close to an ideal economic case for them as anything could be.

ToS is the strongest argument, but the distillers are not parties to the ToS. They get their data from data brokers. It is possible that data brokers are violating the ToS, but it would be hard to write ToS that precluded running queries for third parties without creating problems for consultancies and other businesses. Even presuming the ToS could be written to preclude the data brokers doing that, it doesn't affect the resulting model.

But the general shape of the argument brings us right back to unclean hands: we worked hard on this model and it's not fair for you to profit off our work in a way that doesn't have our permission.

I think the fair-minded position is to see what people think when the documentary comes out. You're essentially arguing a negative here -- that there *can't* be anything of value that hasn't been said yet.

Also, I don't think saying something *new* is necessarily critical. Sometimes saying something obvious but in an interesting way is worthwhile.

In this case, Holmes gave access to the filmmaker. Obviously she has an agenda. If the filmmaker is smart, he has an agenda that's different from hers. If he knows his business he'll find something interesting to show you from that conflict.

Now looking at the trailer -- holy shit that woman gives off batshit crazy vibes. That's new to me. I expected her to be slick, persuasive, like Saruman in Lord of the Rings: someone. you'd need real strength of mind to resist being persuaded by. If I'd just handed someone like that my business card, I'd get it back on some pretext then head as fast as I could for the door.

It doesn't make it *right*, but it does make claiming it is *wrong* inconsistent with their own behavior. This could prevent the US companies from suing the Chinese companies seeking an injunction (due to the "unclean hands" doctrine), and probably blocks them from seeking monetary damages in most US jurisdictions.

And suing may undermine the US companies own intellectual property claims by exposing their shaky foundations. An AI model isn't *expression*, so it can't be copyrighted. Insofar as the service allows the underlying model to be deduced through regular usage, trade secret protections don't apply because that's *reverse engineering*, which trade secrets don't prevent.

This leaves violations of terms of service. But setting aside the dubious enforceability of anti-reverse engineering provisions, the Chinese companies may not even be parties to the ToS agreement if they are obtaining the model data through a network of contractors and shell companies.With only moderate paranoia, they can effectively shield themselves from some kind of US tort claim.

Which leaves them with the model they've created from the US company's model, but which the US company has no IP claim upon. If I download a DeepSeek model that's been (hypothetically speaking) trained on Claude, Anthropic might not like that, but what can they do about it?

It's a strange situation. US investors are spending cumulatively on over half a trillion dollars a year in the hope of owning a breakthrough frontier model that is the end of the economic world as we know it. But the essence of the model might not be intellectual property at all.

How the hell does that happen? Are people born already age 65 plus?

Think of the categories as fixed, and the people moving *through* them. Over 65s are exiting the category at a lower rate.

It's more a case of the fox being in charge of the chicken coop; or bank robbers gaining control of the bank.

The job of the press in a democracy is to hold officials up to scrutiny.

Because of stupid people like you who are too stupid to realise that unless you have legislation that specifies that these devices have to cut all output from the inverter if there's a power cut you can end up in a situation where there's a power cut, an engineer is called out to work on a line he's told has been disconnected and gets electrocuted by the solar installation 3 miles away done by an idiot like you who didn't fit an inverter with that safety feature.

The ones we have in Europe do and have to. They also have to have mains detection so if there's no live mains detected on the socket you're plugging these inverters into they have to cut power OTTOMH I think it has to be in something like 10ms.

Cut moulded mains plug off the end, drill hole in wall or window frame, feed cable through, put a new 3 pin plug on the end, job done. That's how I'll be doing mine. If you've got a mains socket near an external wall on a ring main though (it'll have two twin and earth cables going into the back of the wall socket) you can run a spur to an external mains socket and under the regs it's also something you can DIY without needing an electrician.

That's a bold security decision, freezing patches for CVEs reported in your base software.

Would be a shame if there was relevant cybersecurity regulation that required you to mitigate known issues.

Unless the opponents of LPR cameras can figure out how to outlaw either computers or security cameras, this is a doomed cause. An LPR camera is literally nothing but a high quality camera connected to a computer network, with image recognition software being run on the video stream.

I've been on this site long enough to remember how Slashdot users mocked the efforts of media companies to stop file sharing, pointing out that computers and computer networking couldn't be outlawed. But now, somehow, we're supposed to outlaw character recognition of license plates in the AI age?

Efforts would be far better spent on changing laws to punish misuse of LPR cameras, and codify the parameters of their use. They are useful tools for solving crimes and recovering stolen vehicles, and any police force that uses them can tell you that.

If people truly think that having their license plates being seen in public is a violation of their 4th Amendment rights, then perhaps they should petition their state legislatures to eliminate license plates altogether. Otherwise, what is the purpose of having them?