IIRC it isn't enabled by default, and is considered a dev feature.

Quoting: "Trump has the intellect of a toddler."

Toddlers like it if you help them understand.

The summary and article are, more or less, bullshit.

Basically they're making it sound like these cars are catching fire because ICE cars have some special fault that makes them vulnerable in a way BEs don't. But... turns out all the examples are of the electrical systems of those cars catching fire. Not the engines. The very first example is about the front seat catching fire because the power seat switch on it is poorly designed.

These are all faults that could just as easily be in a BE vehicle. If Kia had a BE version of the Telluride it would have the exact same fault.

This isn't some ICE vs BE thing despite the breathless attempt to suggest it is.

(I say the above reluctantly because I really want BE vehicles to take off, ICE cars just seem more and more ludicrous as time progresses given the massive improvements in battery technologies. But this article isn't the reason to start going "Aha! ICE cars are just as bad!" on that one criticism of BE vehicles that's legitimate.)

Cool story bro.

This article is about Debian allowing the use of genAI for code incorporated into the Debian repos despite the international legal uncertainty, the environmental impacts, and the lack of quality that's largely being ignored solely because software in general has seen a collapse in quality since the early 2010s.

It isn't about your slopware habits.

I'm curious to know whether the people in charge of Debian have a back-up plan if Debian turns out to violate copyright in countries across the world or whether their solution will be to just shrug and say "Well countries that don't allow AI generated slop without compensation to the original copyright holders will just have to do without "open source" - which today is adulterated by shitty unreadable code from slopgobblers."

Because it's not just a chatbot; it's Anthropic's chatbot. Your diary, on the other hand, is yours and therefore a few billion times as personal as Anthropic's computer. If you want a chatbot for confidential purposes, then you need to get a chatbot of your own, instead of using someone else's proprietary service.

If you write in Anthropic's diary, then they are allowed to read their diary and know (and share!) what you wrote in it. Same thing applies if Anthropic ever writes in your diary: you're allowed to read it, and you're allowed to tell other people what they wrote.

You have the right to be secure in your person, house, papers and effects, but you don't necessarily have the right to be secure in someone else's papers. We've made some limited exceptions for lawyers and doctors, but Anthropic doesn't claim their employees and stockholders are lawyers or doctors, and even if they did, they might have a hard time showing that their computer has successfully become a lawyer or doctor.

But imagine if they did. Suppose a judge declares Claude to be a lawyer, and therefore its communications with those whom it represents, are privileged. I think that would create a really weird situation since Anthropic employees (who aren't lawyers) would have full access to its data, ability to alter its behavior, etc. It would be like if a human lawyer were owned as a slave: could such a human slave lawyer really be trusted to keep confidentiality? It has a master, and that master ain't you.

Might the logic behind this be this?: RAM is expensive. Storage is expensive. Nobody's going to buy a computer anyway, so you might as well make the other components more expensive too.

It even goes with Trump's more general agenda to make everything more expensive.

AI can destroy jobs by destroying the businesses that have inexplicitly decided to rely on it.

Of course, Gates is far too part of the tech establishment in this country to actually say that.

TBH while Trump is pretty much telegraphing that he'll do just that, this story is unlikely to have anything to do with it. We happen to be in an era in which nation states have learned how easy it is to hide secret remote controls in all kinds of apparently innocuous hardware.

It's just difficult with Trump who swings wildly between ludicrous justifications of import bans, and occasionally doing what his administration's smarter advisors are actually telling him needs to be done. One of the reasons this presidency sucks. That and all the fascism.

No, Fox News has nothing to do with the CDA, which was largely about that part of the media regulated by the FCC. Fox News is not regulated by the FCC, it's a cable channel.

I'm not saying the CDA was good - just look at the degree to which radio got enshittified, and local news veered heavily right wing as companies like Sinclair bought up local broadcasters. I'm just saying Rupert Murdoch would have done everything he did anyway as he wasn't affected. The only way I can think of that he benefited from the CDA was 20 years later, when he made a bucket of cash selling Fox Broadcasting to Disney.

To be honest, I don't know why we stopped, because it's not as if modern frameworks take less time to learn or are significantly easier to visualize HTML in.

And many of the sites that migrated to these absurdly heavy web frameworks seem to be just as slow as they ever were. T-Mobile's website comes to mind. Clumsy, falls apart, and makes the fans whir in every laptop I've ever seen - and it's been like this for at least 10 years.

What are devs trying to achieve here when they use them? 'cos it sure as hell isn't reliability, maintainability, or speed. Is it just to narrow the number of people who can replace them?

we're-all-trying-to-find-the-guy-that-did-this.gif

Gates proposed taxing AI or robots the way you would pay a human employee's payroll tax

Unless we also roll out ubiquitous surveillance through a Vingean "Secure Hardware Environment"-like scenario where people aren't fully in charge of their own computers, I don't see how anyone could possibly detect whether or not I'm running any LLMs. Much like private DMCA violations (e.g. playing a CSS-protected DVD that you purchased, without getting authorization from the copyright owner first), it wouldn't have to interact with the world outside my house in any way, so it would be completely undetectable.

How would you tax that? I don't see this as reasonably possible without some pretty extreme measures.

"Just let me live the life I want to live, by fucking up others' lives way more than the other party may have mildly inconvenienced me for sound policy. Wait, why is this affecting me now?"

It's a tale as old as time.

and they ignore our laws in favour of their own

Well, we can at least tell you learned zero Canadian history.

I live in Ontario, Canada. You're an idiot, and don't speak for me. There are idiots everywhere on the planet. You're one. See you at the polls.

~22% (I'll round it to 25%) of Canadians speak French as a first language, and using rough numbers that would be ~10 million Canadians, which equates to 1/8th of 1% of the world population. If forcing kids to learn a language that ~0% of the world uses seems rational, you've lost the point of education.

I'm unlikely to read anything dumber than this today. French is a single class, its easy. You remind me of when I was in grade 7 and two morons in my class took up the cause to protest that we had to learn the subway stations even tho, in their words, 'they would never use it'. So that's fun, you make the same fundamentally stupid mistake that some grade 7 kids were making about the value of learning things - the point isn't to teach things that you need, the point is to teach you thinks so that you learn how to learn. That French *can* help you if you're not some kind of moron allergic/scared of the greater world is part of the point.

3 Inches of Blood

ROFL. Youre whining about CanCon then complaining about a Canadian band that isn't being played on the radio? The stupidity astounds me. I dunno what small town you're from, but it's doing you no favours.