

while at the same time, ignoring Windows telemetry,
You’re posting this statement on Lemmy? There is a dispropotionatly high population of Linux and OSX users here. Most of those here ignoring Windows telemetry aren’t running Windows.


while at the same time, ignoring Windows telemetry,
You’re posting this statement on Lemmy? There is a dispropotionatly high population of Linux and OSX users here. Most of those here ignoring Windows telemetry aren’t running Windows.


He said it was not yet clear how many gunmen were involved, adding that detectives and officers from the Taxi Violence Investigations Unit were investigating the attack.
Taxi Violence Investigations Unit


It also has a good use of being the toilet of browsers. As in, if you ever are required to temporarily install some pervasive plugin or extension to take a proctored exam or something, Edge is good to use because you know you won’t use the that browser for anything you care about and you can protect good browsers from those garbage plugins.


With your comments I found additional German legal guidance that mostly matches what you said. It appears that Germany does indeed have a portion of privacy from someone intentionally walking up to you and taking your picture. I don’t think this invalidates my original point because it doesn’t appear that expectation of privacy extends to installed surveillance cameras in public.
However, I appreciate having a better understanding of German law. Thank you.
Only IKEA and Pottery Barn photographers I think.


Forgive the machine translation to English, but reading that shows the a very similar exception to privacy protection we have here in the USA
Here’s one example:
"There are exceptions to events (demonstrations, general meetings, cultural events, etc.). Here, participants must expect to be photographed. This is about what is happening and not about the person itself. "
Most of the wiki article is talking specifically about copyright, which isn’t the scope of what we’re talking about. Publication of taken images is a different topic.


In my opinion, go the Mondragón route. Bring democracy into the enterprise and allow those who work to control how they work. That way those who are being “automated” away can have a voice in what to do next.
Isn’t that what we already have today? Jim no longer has a job at this employer. Jim can choose where he works next.
Also, your vision of human capacity is very limiting. Why can’t Jim learn new skills? Everyone does it, literally all the time. Even construction workers have domain knowledge on how to pour cement that they learnt from others.
As shown in the example, Jim is not capable of learning the skills (in any reasonable amount of time) to take on another open position at that company. So are you suggesting that Jim go back to school? Who are you suggesting, in your vision, is pay for Jim’s living and school expenses until he is ready to work a position with a higher skillset?


Apathy? Not at all. Its simply a matter of established law, in the USA anyway. I can’t speak to the legal systems of the other 140+ countries on planet Earth.
Can you cite a law in the USA or in your own country where you have a right to privacy making photographing you simply standing in a public park an illegal act perpetrated by another person or government entity?


I think we’re aligned on the core issue but with nuanced perspectives. Regulatory capture is indeed the established academic term for the phenomenon you describe,
Its close, but I don’t think that’s correct for this situation.
precisely capturing how agencies meant to protect public interest end up advancing industry priorities through mechanisms like the revolving doorbetween Boeing and Congress.
You’re missing one key aspect of the definition of regulatory capture. NASA isn’t a regulatory body in the case with Boeing, its the customer.
For it to be regulator capture NASA would have to be acting as a regulatory body, and the corrupt company would have to have influence over policy that they benefit from outside of the regulator. An example of regulatory capture was what lead up to one aspect of the 2008 Financial Crisis. Banks have to have a US government regulatory that sets policy and policies the actions of the bank. Prior to 2008 banks could choose their regulator which their choices between the FDIC, Federal Reserve, or a little known regulator call Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS). It won’t surprise you to find out that the OTS was a tiny little shop which only had a few employees, and banks figured out they could write their own policy, get the OTS to approve it, and get away with actions the banks would normally be barred from doing. This lead to risky bank behavior, and the failure of banks and a large contributor to the Financial Crisis of 2008.
NASA wasn’t acting as a regulator to Boeing for Starliner. NASA wasn’t setting government regulations which Boeing had to follow for all vehicles Boeing produced for spaceflight. NASA was a customer giving specs to its contractor, but the contractor had corporate power over its customer, NASA. So yes this would be something like corporate capture but it wasn’t regulatory capture.
Where I’d argue the Starliner narrative: While Boeing’s participation provided political cover for Commercial Crew legislation,
We agree with this. This was my whole thesis in my original post.
SpaceX’s 2010 Falcon 9 debut and subsequent rapid repeatability fundamentally reset industry expectations.
Not really. It wasn’t SpaceX alone, and it wasn’t because SpaceX as rapid. It was because it was it was cheap. SpaceX wasn’t alone in this though. The other contract winner of Commercial Cargo contract, Orbital Sciences, was also cheap and had nothing to do with rapid repeatability. Both were, however, cheap, compared to the cost-plus contract providers that came before them.
The success of fixed-price cargo contracts demonstrated reusable rockets and rapid iteration were possible, proving cost-plus models weren’t inevitable. This technological inflection point–not Boeing’s involvement–created the political space for NASA to demand accountability in human spaceflight.
I disagree entirely. SpaceX reusabilty had zero impact on the success of the initial Commercial Cargo or Commercial Crew contract adoption. How do we know this? Four ways:
When SpaceX started flying cargo, reusuabilty wasn’t even a thing yet on Falcon 9. Reusability arrived later during the contract, but the fixed price contracts had already been signed and SpaceX received no extra money from the contract derived from reusability.
SpaceX wasn’t the only provider of Commercial Cargo. The other was Orbital Sciences (later OrbitalATK, later yet Northrop Grumman) with their completely disposable rocket and cargo module (Cygnus). Again, when Orbital signed their contract for Commercial Cargo the prices were set. Whether Orbital threw away their Antares rocket after launch (which they did) or not, had no bearing on the Commercial Cargo contracts.
No part of Starliner was reusable at the time of contact signing for Commercial Crew. Not the core stage, not the second stage, not the SRBs, not the crew vehicle. If reusabilty was so much of a factor for Commercial Crew how did Boeing, that had zero usability, not only win a Commercial Crew contract, but also was the highest paid of the two contact winners?
If reusabilty was such an important factor in Commercial Crew selection, why was Boeing, with zero reusabilty, chosen, but not Sierra Nevada Corporation’s (today known as Sierra Space) Dreamchaser vehicle NOT chose when it was a reusable crew vehicle from day 1?
Boeing’s Starliner struggles directly stem from its post-1997 merger culture shift,
We agree on all the reasons Boeing sucks today.
The breakthrough came not from Boeing’s inclusion but from SpaceX proving fixed-price development could work
That simply isn’t true. Again, SpaceX wasn’t the only Fixed Price space contractor. Orbital Sciences was too. Also, I remember pieces quotes from government hearings where SpaceX was criticized as not being up-to-the-task of handling human flight and that only a company with experience like Boeing would be able to deliver, and without a “sure thing” delivery contractor extending the concept of Fixed Price contracts from Commercial Cargo to Commercial Crew shouldn’t move forward unless a trusted company like Boeing was involved in Commercial Crew. This was also why Boeing was paid so much more than SpaceX for far fewer flights in the contract language.


Now if they can just notify you that some asshole is recording you on their cell phone instead of reading reddit.
If you’re out in public, always assume you’re on someone’s camera. That isn’t really new either.


before that it wasn’t always considered as big of a deal as you are referring to, idk pre 1970s or what.
We’re agreeing with the reality that it wasn’t considered a crime or a big deal in generations past. Where we have a huge gulf of disagreement is if this was a problem or not. I am flabbergasted about the strong defense you’re putting up to be able to drink and drive.
May I ask if you or your family have ever been negatively affected by a drunk driver before?


I digress though, no one thinks people should be driving drunk, I am just making the point, that .12 for generations was the standard, in some states.
And the standard before .12 was “no standard” where driving drunk wasn’t even a crime.
The larger problem is why we are completely reliant on vehicles, that we cannot even enjoy more than two drinks on the town and legally go home. There must be better ways, fuck cars.
Taxi cabs have exist since before the invention of cars. They were horse drawn carriages. Today we even have Uber and Lyft that are easier that hailing a cab.


Completely unrelated to the article: I would encourage any woman of child bearing age to obtain a passport now when there is no rush. Using the slow process it takes about 6-10 weeks of waiting to get your passport after you apply. For a full passport that can be used in any country the cost is $130. If you only want to go to Canada and/or Mexico, you only need a passport card, which can be had for only $30. Its the same form to get either the book or the card, you would just check a different box.
Also unrelated: Abortion pills are easily available in both Mexico and Canada.
Uh huh, hey, why don’t these job numbers reports ever talk about whether these new jobs are keeping up with the cost of living? Seems like it’d be important to discern how many jobs are paying minimum wage and how many are paying enough to actually afford to survive longer than the next 24 fucking hours.
You’d get closer to that answer with a different report. Probably a combination of the Occupation Finder data showing wage ranges and the Employment Projections data which shows employment increase in number of jobs or declines in each sector.
The BLS used to be a gold standard for fantastic data collection, analysis, and sharing. However, I am not putting much confidence behind any data coming out of the trump administration.


I mean, I expect a hockey team to be in its locker room. Did they actively invite Patel, or did Patel just show up uninvited. I think its the latter, right?


I work in the cloud computing space. The lack of a full featured end-to-end cloud computing provider is really one of the biggest things holding the EU back from IT independence. Its not enough for a provider to provide VM servers or Kubernetes on the compute side, its all the ancillary services such as Advanced Visibility, microservices, advanced routing and load balancing, Enterprise grade HA solutions on both compute and DB side etc.
A number of EU providers have part of this kind of service offering, but to be a replacement for Azure, AWS, GCP, or OCI, there needs to be a complete solution to enable rapid deployment that can grow to a global solution.


Nuclear was was always an apocalypse that might happen.
I’m not sure if you know the history of how close we came to nuclear war in October 1962. It was the first time in history the USA ever went to Defcon 2. We had 25 nuclear bombers in the air with the rest of them on 15 minute standby.
Hitler was bad, but he didn’t have anything like the arsenal and intelligence networks available to Trump. We have the consentration camps, and the death camps too, although those are outsourced in other countries.
As bad as trump is, has he murdered 13 million innocent people yet? That’s Hitler’s number of murdered innocent people.
We have been at worse points in history than we are right now.


The world is in a bad place right now, but it was even worse of when we are right at the edge of global nuclear war in 1962 during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Before that the world was on the verge of falling in the early 1940s to fascist rule of Hitler and the Emperor of Japan with most of Europe occupied and concentration camps exterminating thousands of innocent people a day.
As bad as it is today, we’ve had worse, and we made it through it to better times. It won’t come without effort, but humanity will get through this too.


I have no problem with Bad Bunny’s music or entertainment even if its not something I seek out regularly. However, I’ve never seen Bad Bunny work against free and fair elections in the United States or foment insurrection when he didn’t get elected President, so just by those measures, Bad Bunny is a much better representation of American values than trump.
Just for common understanding, you’re making blanket statements about LLMs as though those statements apply to all LLMs. You’re not wrong if you’re generally speaking of the LLM models deployed for retail consumption like, as an example, ChatGPT. None of what I’m saying here is a defense about how these giant companies are using LLMs today. I’m just posting from a Data Science point of view on the technology itself.
However, if you’re talking about the LLM technology, as in a Data Science view, your statements may not apply. The common hyperparameters for LLMs are to choose the most likely matches for the next token (like the ChatGPT example), but there’s nothing about the technology that requires that. In fact, you can set a model to specifically exclude the top result, or even choose the least likely result. What comes out when you set these hyperparameters is truly strange and looks like absolute garbage, but it is unique. The result is something that likely hasn’t existed before. I’m not saying this is a useful exercise. Its the most extreme version to illustrate the point. There’s also the “temperature” hyperparamter which introduces straight up randomness. If you crank this up, the model will start making selections with very wide weights resulting in pretty wild (and potentially useless) results.
What many Data Scientists trying to make LLMs generate something truly new and unique is to balance these settings so that new useful combinations come out without it being absolute useless garbage.