The SVP is the most "right-wing" party among the major parties in Switzerland. Although firmly "right-wing" I don't think it should be considered "far-right" though.

Note that Switzerland has a number of "major" parties that cover the political spectrum. Even as the largest, the SVP has "only" 30% of the seats. The second largest party has 20% and it's the left-wing SDP. Neither the left parties nor the right parties have absolute majority. The system functions by finding consensus.

IMHO the problem is that many professional are sleeping on AI. They don't take the time to try it and become proficient with it. Part of it is likely due to inertia, part of it due to prejudice or bad experience with earlier iterations.

You can and Claude is pretty good at auto-configuring itself. You still need to tell him what you need though, which means having familiarity over what MPC servers, skills and plugins can do.

I used Gemini. My prompt was: "create a bullet list in html syntax of skills that might be useful or required to use an AI in a professional setting". This is the result:

• Prompt Engineering: Crafting precise, context-rich, and structured prompts to elicit high-quality, accurate responses from generative AI models.
• Critical Thinking & Fact-Checking: Verifying AI-generated outputs for biases, logical fallacies, or "hallucinations" before implementing them in business decisions.
• Data Literacy: Understanding how data is collected, structured, and utilized by AI systems, as well as recognizing data privacy and security boundaries.
• AI Tool Familiarity: Navigating and mastering domain-specific AI platforms (e.g., large language models, AI image generators, automated data analysis tools, and coding assistants).
• Ethical Awareness & Compliance: Understanding the ethical implications of AI use, including copyright laws, intellectual property rights, and company compliance policies.
• Workflow Automation: Integrating AI tools into existing workflows using APIs, low-code/no-code platforms, or automation software (like Zapier or Make) to increase efficiency.
• Iterative Problem Solving: Approaching AI tasks with an experimental mindset—refining, testing, and tweaking inputs continuously to achieve the desired outcome.

As a software engineer working daily with coding agents and AI workflows, I can confirm the list is pretty accurate although of course not exhaustive. IMHO the most important skill is being aware of what an AI can accomplish, which nowadays is a lot.

I'm sure they will, to conduct some undoubtedly ethical reverse engineering.

Because their situation might be different. I do personal stuff on my work devices from time to time but my employer explicitly allows minor personal use and in my jurisdiction they are actually prohibited by law from performing behavioural monitoring unless they have a very specific reason.

It doesn't matter who initiates the download. By your rationale putting compromised packages in package repositories would never be a crime since "the user initiates the transmission", which is obviously not how the courts see it.

The author decided to shut up and consult a lawyer for a reason.

The author made the files available on distribution channels. GitHub Releases very likely qualify as distribution channel. Maven Central 100% qualifies as distribution channel. That is most likely more than enough to be considered "knowingly causes the transmission" as interpreted by the courts.

Artifacts containing the code in questions were made available. That is very likely to qualify as "knowingly causes the transmission" even only as GitHub Release and it 100% qualifies as deployment on Maven Central.

True in the US, but definitely not true in general. In the EU this kind of data collection would be 100% illegal.

That's not true at all unless "Agile" is being touted as excuse to do a sloppy work. Part of the work when doing Agile properly is refining design decisions and aggressively refactoring consequently. There should be a lot of design considerations being done continuously when doing Agile.

Said that, there are teams which do use "Agile" as excuse to cut corners and keep solutions half-baked, so I get what you mean.

That's a key issue. The "original" Agile Manifesto and Agile movement was developer-centric and tried to offer pragmatic solutions for developers wanting to get the job done. When Scrum entered the place, it turned "Agile" project-management-centric, with focus on processes and "ceremonies" to integrate in a corporate strucuture which is almost inevitably highly hierarchical and top-down driven.

This is a big source of endless discussion because the two are very different things. It's like an American talking about "liberals" vs. an European, where in America it means "neo-liberals" and in Europe more likely "classic-liberals", which couldn't be more far apart in ideology.

Some of the most elegant and effective designs I produced were developed with Agile. "Emergent design" can be superior because it can profit from lessons learned during its own implementation and will continuously get refined during the life of the solution, as long as the solution gets properly adapted to those lessons which is exactly what Agile is supposed to achieve.

How Agile operates is by continuously adapting to new lessons learned and situational changes, but it is supposed to be done aggressively and in a clean way. Not doing that or doing that through ugly hacks is not how it's supposed to work.

A large team will inevitably split itself into smaller units.

Among the larger team there should and will be some higher level coordination, but the lower level discussion necessary to get things actually done only scales up to small team size before becoming so much overhead to become problematic.

That's not how it works. Even if human-like consciousness could be replicate by a machine, there is no evidence that LLMs are doing that.

What he is saying is that it "looks enough like actual consciousness that it must be it", but that is not sound reasoning.

Something can be functionally equivalent enough to the real thing to give the impression of being the real thing without actually being the real thing.

From the text of the initiative, basically the government would be required to implement restrictive measures once 9.5M are reached. If 10M are exceeded, the government would be required to terminate international treaties that drive immigration.

This is effectively a constitutional amendment, so many details are not defined at this level. If successfull, the details would need to be elaborated by the government, e.g. by the Parliament enacting new legislation to satisfy the new constitutional requirements.

No, it's not: it's a subscription contract that lasts until one of the parties terminates it. This means the contract lasts effectively indefinitely but can be terminated or in some aspects modified during its course without having to agree to a full new contract agreement, which the consumer would have to actively accept every time.

The issue is that for these contracts the law does allow for modifications without requiring a full new contract agreement every time, but the clauses in the contract need to be specific about what can be changed and why and cannot give the provider too much unilateral power. The clause Netflix was using from 2017 to April 2025 were instead very generic, giving Netflix basically unlimited power to unilaterally change the price without justification.

In the Italian system clauses like these, which give a party significant unilateral power over the other party, are called "vessatorie" (vexatious) and are void unless individually accepted and signed by the other party on top of the contract containing them. In case of online contracts this might require a separate digital signature for each individual clause.

Note that a proper digital signature would otherwise not be required for an online contract not containing these type of clauses, which can be accepted by a consumer by simply clicking on a consent box. This means having these clauses makes an online contract much more problematic to accept.

Since the clauses Netflix was using to increase prices were found to be "vexatious" and were not accepted with individual signature, they were found to be void. Since they were void, Netflix could not use them as basis to increase the prices. After April 2025 Netflix introduced clauses that were considered not vexatious and Netflix can increase prices based on them.