8uurg

At least the European Commission has their own Mastodon instance.

I personally prefer the more complex setup discussed in https://ncase.me/trust/.

The prisoners dilemma is a single decision game: you can tattle or stay silent, and as you don't know what the other does, and due to how things are set up you would prefer to tattle, even if both staying silent yields better results for both parties.

Politics like this is more of a repeated game, like the one described in the link. You can trust one another, in spite of this single iteration Pareto optimal setting favoring betrayal, and work together. But also; show that you are not an easy mark that can be exploited.

We rarely prove something correct. In mathematics, logical proofs are a thing, but in astronomy and physics it is moreso the case that we usually have a model that is accurate enough for our predictions, until we find evidence to the contrary, like here, and have an opportunity to learn and improve.

You really can't ever prove a lot of things to be correct: you would have to show that no more cases exist that are not covered. But even despite the lack of proven correctness for all cases, these models are useful and provide correct predictions (most of the time), science is constantly on the lookout for cases where the model is wrong or incorrect.

Wouldn't the algorithm that creates these models in the first place fit the bill? Given that it takes a bunch of text data, and manages to organize this in such a fashion that the resulting model can combine knowledge from pieces of text, I would argue so.

What is understanding knowledge anyways? Wouldn't humans not fit the bill either, given that for most of our knowledge we do not know why it is the way it is, or even had rules that were - in hindsight - incorrect?

If a model is more capable of solving a problem than an average human being, isn't it, in its own way, some form of intelligent? And, to take things to the utter extreme, wouldn't evolution itself be intelligent, given that it causes intelligent behavior to emerge, for example, viruses adapting to external threats? What about an (iterative) optimization algorithm that finds solutions that no human would be able to find?

Intellegence has a very clear definition.

I would disagree, it is probably one of the most hard to define things out there, which has changed greatly with time, and is core to the study of philosophy. Every time a being or thing fits a definition of intelligent, the definition often altered to exclude, as has been done many times.

Why would company A need to accomodate any other "app store" in their product, especially if one of their product's selling point is how streamlined it is?

Why should Microsoft allow for other browsers to be installed on Windows? Why should Google allow for other search engines being selectable on Android and in Chrome? The reason in all these cases is the same: it is anti-competitive, and creates a monopoly. This results in unfairly high costs to users, where these users are 3rd party software developers or end users. Due to this countries have laws against this.

Companies obviously wouldn't want to accommodate others in ways that cost them money, but that does not make it morally acceptable from a societal point of view.

It is unclear to me what you are trying to accomplish, do you want to update the elements for where masked?

Generally, faster moving traffic necessitates more space between vehicles for a safe stopping distance. Often this distance is specified in seconds as to account for this speed. Road capacity is hence barely affected by changes in speed, only your travel time, if you can get on the road, is. [1]

Moreover, in a city with many intersections, the bottleneck is usually the intersections themselves, not the roads. Higher speeds just causes you to get to the next intersection faster, but may not improve the capacity of an intersection, reducing the travel time gains of a higher speed limit. [2]

To the contrary, the potential increase in travel time for cars could make alternatives to driving more attractive, reducing congestion instead. Furthermore, accidents tend to block roads, also causing congestion. Fewer accidents means less congestion.

Polars has essentially replaced Pandas for me. It is MUCH faster (in part due to lazy queries) and uses much less RAM, especially if the query can be streamed. While syntax takes a bit of getting used to at first, it allows me to specify a lot more without having to resort to apply with custom Python functions.

My biggest gripe is that the error messages are significantly less readable due to the high amount of noise: the stacktrace into the query executor does not help with locating my logic error, stringified query does not tell me where in the query things went wrong...

The key point that is being made is that it you are doing de facto copyright infringement of plagiarism by creating a copy, it shouldn't matter whether that copy was made though copy paste, re-compressing the same image, or by using AI model. The product being the copy paste operation, the image editor or the AI model here, not the (copyrighted) image itself. You can still sell computers with copy paste (despite some attempts from large copyright holders with DRM), and you can still sell image editors.

However, unlike copy paste and the image editor, the AI model could memorize and emit training data, without the input data implying the copyrighted work. (exclude the case where the image was provided itself, or a highly detailed description describing the work was provided, as in this case it would clearly be the user that is at fault, and intending for this to happen)

At the same time, it should be noted that exact replication of training data isn't exactly desirable in any case, and online services for image generation could include a image similarity check against training data, and many probably do this already.

Republicans however also: deport people with a legal right to be in the country, including citizens, without due process. Want to destroy all progress made on issues affecting the LGBTQ+ community. Wish to reduce women's rights, some including voting rights. Want to abolish the separation between church and state.

Even if there is a close resemblance between the two parties on Gaza, but there are plenty of other issues where they are still incomparable, and ignoring these differences and calling both parties equally bad does not help.

Also, the user experience is also bound to be much better when a manufacturer provides a tested and supported operating system, especially for "non-experts" for whom a terminal is an arcane inscription tablet.

That is only really a good solution for the few that live in the countryside. If sufficiently many people live close enough to one another without a shop, that is a issue that is best solved by improving planning and introducing local shops (reducing the distance all people in the community have to travel).