Clippy trying to flog stuff
It looks like you're writing an email.
Let me interest you in ...
425 publicly visible posts • joined 21 Feb 2020
"By their work they created breeds of cattle and horse – later named "Heck cattle" and "Heck horse" respectively, after their creators – that are not sufficiently similar to their ancestors to be called a successful resurrection, although Heinz and Lutz Heck believed they had "resurrected" the breeds by their efforts.[3] Lutz was interested in hunting and he chose fierce fighting breeds of cattle for his breeding experiments. He saw a plan to release his reconstituted aurochs into Hermann Göring’s private hunting reserves planned (as part of Generalplan Ost) in the Bialowieza forest between Poland and Belarus."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lutz_Heck
-> Mine's the one leather one, made from re-extinced species
Correct me if I'm wrong.
The so-called new Outlook is a rebranding of the Mail & Calendar apps, which are somewhat terrible.
If micros~1 were to offer businesses the bog-standard Outlook, maybe even with extenability, I guess a lot of companies would pay for it.
Humans have their habits, and they absolutely do not want to change their habits.
Especially in IT, with non tech-savvy users, breaking habits is really disruptive (disruptive in all negative meanings one can think of).
But, what are we to expect from micros~1=?
* messing with the start menu
* ribbon menu instead of classical menu
* shoving apps from micros~1 down the users' throats for all sorts of tasks, even when other apps were already set as default for these tasks
* ... to be continued
The passenger and the space tourism operating company agree that said passenger should not develop any health issues from the trip to space.
If said passenger fails to adhere to the above clause, the operating company reserves its right to seek damages from said passenger.
Unless the makers of the LLMs reveal all their training data, one has to assume that the LLMs were trained using everything that's accessible on the internet, i.e., a decades long record of human bias, hate speech and misinformation.
So, I am not the very least surprised.
What were people expecting?
A LLM trained on human shite, spouting anything other than shite?
It is quite ironic, isn't it.
The company that's main in the news for laying off staff, at least here, is pursuing an initiative to retain a specific workforce.
Maybe the managers simply don't know the product. Maybe they aren't aware that it's the old iron that earns significant bucks for the company, while they all are using only the cloudy stuff. Or maybe they're just plain incompetent. Apply Hanlon's, Ockham's or any other razors at will.
Yes, that was one of them.
On the other hand, the music is out there. So, as long as royalties are paid to the original composer, everybody is free to perform the music. On the other-other hand, I am not a lawyer.
The thing that bugged me, was the reference to a specific set of movies and then showing visuals that are more at home in some '90s or '00s fantasy RPG.
A chatbot with a Disclaimer: "Do not trust the chatbot, it may be full of the proverbial", either means no savings from employing AI as a means to cut back on actual people answering inquiries, or zero-ing you customer facing communication, i.e., no real-life people and an untrustworthy chatbot.
Well ... in theory parents would/could be able to shield their kids from all sorts of harm.
However ... there's a good reason why some potential dangers are taken care of by the law, and not relegated to the conscious individual.
The only effective way to prevent kids from creating social media account is probably preventing them to have a smartphone or access computers, because how high is the bar one needs to pass to create such an account? The existence of an email address?
If underage kids want to buy booze or cigarettes, there's a good chance that this is prevented since the cashier sees them in real life, and may demand a proof of age.
Does anyone really think, that the age limit for social media is remotely similar effective?
Whoever did not lie about their age as a kid throws the first faecebook like.
One would understand if they were honest about it.
If I order something online, and I could actually select "my parcel non-delivery company can't be bothered" and the parcel gets delivered to a nearby collection center, some random shop or a post office; and nobody even pretends that said parcel will be delivered, then everybody is happy.
However, you enter your adress, the non-delivery company sends a mail promising delivery on day X, and then without even a ring at the door, you receive the notification that you weren't at home, and parcel will be non-delivered the next day. And that's even though you were at home.
I avoid ordering stuff online because non-delivery is such a pain.
It's a commonplace, that AI models are trained using freely available text from the internet, e.g., these forum posts.
So, has anybody ever posted something positive, when DPD or other "delivery companies" were discussed?
I guess one can safely assume: discussion about DPD, swear words will follow.
Yeah, that's when in-house competence should make its resurgence.
Image, if Bletchley Park would have been run by one of the big IT "service" companies from the 2020s ...
"We've finally broken the Enigma codes of the Kriegsmarine from June 1941"
"Heil mein Kamerad, nevermind your troubles. It's 1943, and you have been assimilated into the new Groß-Britain Reich"
"Anyway, as long as the contract is being paid, we're fine with that. Heil, and so on ..."
... if IT vendors could go on a block-list for badly forked-up projects.
Think along the lines: you're a month blocked for each million $CURRENCY of borked project. The bigger the fail, the more time to think about doing better next time.
And when, after some unavoidable borkage, because what big government IT project doesn't get borked beyond recognition, there won't be any suppliers left.
... and that's when the public hand, that was previously only handing out the ching-ching, start developing in-house capability.
-> Please, wake me up, I'm obviously dreaming again.
Swiss-cheese model: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_cheese_model
The layers of security
* Password: it can't be anybody, at least easily
* Rate-limiting failed log-ins: rule out automated brute-force attacks
* 2FA of any description: reduce the population of possible attackers who might pull off a successful attack
Rate-limiting failed log-ins is such an easy measure, this should be mandatory for every service.
* There's no additional infrastructure required, as opposed to 2FA.
* There's no inconvenience to the user, they generally remember their passwords.
* There's nothing speaking against rate-limiting failed log-ins, is there?
With all the mis-information nonsense of the WEF being a sort of shadow government run by a cabal of what-not; it's definitely a very smart move to put "Disease X" on the agenda.
Do this, yes; but do it within the framework of the WHO or in academia.
Having the world economic forum discuss public health invites much more than a healthy dose of skepticism from all sorts of informed, mis-informed, non-informed and informationally deformed people.
While I get your reasoning, at least in my understanding this doesn't apply in this case. In this case, it's the US that wants to trial a US citizen.
Your reasoning would apply, if SBF wasn't a US citizen, then the US would take the role of the "another country".
If SBF has a Bahamian passport, then may. But still, if he's still a US citizen, then it shouldn't be so difficult.
But maybe, I'm too simple a mind to understand.
If I were a cynical man, I would say that the tangled web of international law has only been invented to shield certain people from facing justice.
Why is the Bahamas extradition such a big deal anyways?
Is it, because SBF is also a citizen of the Bahamas? If he was only a US citizen, then why can moving abroad even shield you from prosecution of the US justice system? After all, it's your own country that's pursuing you for alleged violations of your own country's laws. Changing (simply) your place of residence should change all that much.
If, however, SBF also holds a Bahamian passport, then things probably get tangled, at least in my simple mind.
However, dual-citizenship shouldn't be a race to the bottom in terms of which laws apply to one.
Anyway, I still don't get why the US simply can not do the second trial later.
I guess, I'm too simple for that one.
I read somewhere, that seeking the cooperation of the Bahamas, where SBF was residing, was somewhat difficult with the campaign donation charges. And thus, in order to proceed relatively quickly, they dropped this case, in order to get sentencing done for the first trial.
However, ...
Once, SBF is convicted, and is in jail in the US, then he's a US resident And since, they then already got him in their hands; they can take all the time in the world to do the second trial about the campaign donations. It most probably won't add any actual jail time, since you can only spend one and only one life in prison; but for reasons of finding the truth, serve justice, etc. etc. it would, on an abstract level, still worth it to go through the second trial.
So, why not do it when he's already in jail?
Every minor scrap of a written record may turn out to be detrimental
There's a wonderful Austrian saying for you fitting the story.
However, in this case the protagonist was saved by the written record.
Schrift'l is the diminuitive of Schrift, meaning a diminuitive of a written record.
Gift'l is the diminuitive of Gift, which translates to poison.
I'm not proficient enough in English to make the rhyme work in English.
This saying is often used, in political commentary when some records turn up to haunt politicians over some scandal/issue.
On the other hand, if you have reason to believe that a written record might come in handy in the future, this saying also applies.
In the context of this story, the written record turned out to be a bane for the penny-pinching managers, since they weren't able to deflect blame.