It's the opposite. The rules are well written by people who understand the issues. It's the regulators and courts that have had problems understanding.

That's basically what Android is. The APIs can run on any base OS, and for a while Microsoft maintained a subsystem for Windows. CPU agnostic too.

Chinese machines are already making inroads where they aren't banned. You can get a lot of decent construction equipment from there too. That's the danger here, by the time Western companies get around to producing EV tractors with all the advantages they bring, the market will be saturated with mature and competitively priced products.

As for durability, some EVs have proven to be very fixable. Nissan Leafs are a good example. Relatively simple, not difficult to work on, drivetrain that is separate from everything else and highly maintainable. Again, the Deeres of the world are screwing themselves with all this DRM bullshit that stops people fixing their products.

If you need health advice, check some European country's public health agencies. The UK's NHS has a decent website with information on a lot of medical conditions.

Thanks, that's informative. If I had mod points they would be yours.

In a sense his puzzlement is justified; when the tech demo works an LLM is probably the most obvious candidate for 'just this side of sci-fi'; and, while may of the capabilities offered are actually somewhat hollow (realistically, most of the 'take these 3 bullet points and create a document that looks like I cared/take that document that looks like my colleague cared and give me 3 bullet points' are really just enticements to even more dysfunctional communication) some of them are fairly hard to see duplicating by conventional means.

However, I suspect that his perspective is fundamentally unhelpful in understanding the skepticism: when you are building stuff it's easy to get caught up in the cool novelty and lose sight of both the pain points(especially when you are deep C-Level; rather than the actual engineer fighting chatGPT's tendency to em-dash despite all attempts to control it); and overestimate how well your new-hotness stacks up against both existing alternatives and how forgiving people will or won't be about its deficiencies.

Something like Windows trying to 'conversational'/'agentic' OS settings, for instance, probably looks pretty cool if you are an optimism focused ML dude: "hey, it's not perfect but it's a natural language interface to adjusting settings that confuse users!"; but it looks like absolute garbage from an outside perspective both because it's badly unreliable; and humans tend not to respond well to clearly unreliable 'people'(if it can't even find dark mode; why waste my time with it?); and because it looks a lot like abdication of a technically simpler, less exciting, job in favor of chasing the new hotness.

"Settings are impenetrable to a nontechnical user" is a UI/UX problem(along with a certain amount of lower level 'maybe if bluetooth was less fucked people wouldn't care where the settings were because it would just work); so throwing an LLM at the problem is basically throwing up your hands and calling it unsolvable by your UI/UX people; which is the an abject concession of failure; not a mark of progress.

I think it may be that that he really isn't understanding: MS has spent years squandering the perception that they would at least try to provide an OS that allowed you to do your stuff; in favor of faffing with various attempts to be your cool app buddy and relentless upsell pal; so every further move in that direction is basically confirmation that no fucks are given about just trying to keep the fundamentals in good order rather than getting distracted by shiny things.

"States rights!"

"No, not like that!"

This is the internet. I figured that since they tried to censor it, someone would have made copies.

Specifically, this effort: https://www.space.com/37506-qu...

I can't see what the difference is, other than that these guys managed to do it over a 10m long optical fibre, and the Chinese scientists did it from Earth to a satellite in orbit.

Maybe. I'm not sure what they are supposed to show. Some titles would be helpful.

This.

My take on vibe coding is simple: Don't.

At least not the way most people understand it. I'm totally ok with having an AI do the tedious work. But only do it on stuff you could do yourself (i.e. you're just saving time). Because otherwise, you'll never be able to maintain it.

This, in general, is the whole problem: The entire "vibe coding" movement only worries about CREATING code. But in the real world, maintaining, updating, refactoring, reviewing, testing, bugfixing, etc. etc. are typically more effort than writing it in the first place.

Couldn't find a link to these videos anywhere in TFA. Anyone got them?

My understanding is that their dodgy software notices things like "abnormal" eye movements and accuses the student of cheating.

China is like the EU - perpetually on the verge of collapse, if you believe the "experts".

They do this not to hide bad numbers, to be prevent the kind of thing you see happening on Wall Street all the time. They don't want a huge speculative gambling market, they don't want people betting against their economy, and they don't want people making short term decisions based on quarterly data.

If the $ sign didn't give you away, the assumption that the law works like that did. The UK is not the US, the law doesn't allow you to get around the wording like that. Courts generally interpret the intention of the law, and look for ways for it to practically implement that intention.

Such obvious fraud would be, well, fraud.

If GDPR had been properly enforced, the current style of cookie banners should have been blocked from the start.

Recital 32 states that consent cannot be forced or coerced. Putting up a big banner that obscures half the page is coercion. Making it more clicks to opt out than to accept is coercion, and what's more GDPR clearly says that everything must be opt in, not out.