You mean like Ukrainians? When Putin just won the election?

As long as the Supreme Court agrees that that is restrictive, sure.

They are going to spend those 4 years doing everything they can to fix the next election as well. Gerrymandering, voter intimidation, you name it. By all means hide in bed to get over the shock but, if you stay there, you’ll need to stay there more than 4 years.

So an EU-backed distro could be the same. Yes, they would fund maintainers, but their own maintainers, not maintainers of upstream distros.

How much of Ubuntu’s funding goes to supporting debian? I actually don’t know.

I don’t, for example, see Ubuntu listed here: https://www.debian.org/partners/

Well, what better way to embrace FOSS than dismissing the efforts of all the existing distro maintainers? Welcome to the community, guys. Good luck building your cathedral next to the bazaar!

How about they instead work together with the distros and create a way of certifying a distro as gov-ready?

To be clear, that’s the only sense that people have managed to make of it. That doesn’t mean that was actually what he was referring to.

The insurance companies saw this coming. That’s why they have the clauses that exclude flood damage.

If AIs are to find the solution for us, we need one really smart one, not many AIs that are similarly smart to existing ones. He is proposing building more data centres, ie. the latter option.

If we can spot these trends while working 9-5, then an idiot can probably spot them if they spend 40 hours a week on it.

The 5 bullet points do not sound like slang terms to me.

PieDock

Losing 2,000 litres of helium is possibly the worst part of this.

That is the error that the model made. Your quote talks about the causes of these errors. I asked what caused the model to make this error.

Sure, but which of these factors do you think were relevant to the case in the article? The AI seems to have had a large corpus of documents relating to the reporter. Those articles presumably stated clearly that he was the reporter and not the defendant. We are left with “incorrect assumptions made by the model”. What kind of assumption would that be?

In fact, all of the results are hallucinations. It’s just that some of them happen to be good answers and others are not. Instead of labelling the bad answers as hallucinations, we should be labelling the good ones as confirmation bias.

Cities are inherently car centric. Think about a typical crossroads controlled by lights. When the light is green, a car can enter the junction and can then leave in any direction (sometimes it has to wait for oncoming traffic, but it can always leave when the lights change again). When the light goes green for a pedestrian at the same junction, they can cross 1 road only.

Fundamentally, the cars are in the middle. They don’t have to cross pavements (or cycle lanes) to turn. Everyone else has to cross the road.

Of course, there are exceptions, where a junction has been designed so that, for example, pedestrians can cross diagonally. Likewise the cycle lane sometimes continues across the junction, but mostly doesn’t.

Well, the children don’t have a choice, so I assume you’re talking about the choice to target the militants there and not in another place.

Yes, specifically militants who are fathers.

Hamas uses phones, hence the “Where’s Daddy?” attack, which is not directed at tunnels. It’s more-or-less designed to hit civilians. The clue is in the name.

Well, there you are again. You said “my questioning of what you claimed”. That isn’t self reflection. If you aren’t asking in bad faith, you need to spend more time on your wording.