So what is the mechanism that the administratuon would use to block access?
I get how China could block access to Chinese LLMs, but any startup that can't or won't bypass a US imposed block on a Chinese offering was going to fail anyway.
This makes complete sense in an environment where people transition from noob to senior engineer within the same company.
It makes less sense in an era when tenure is better measured in months than years.
It makes even less sense in an era of LLMs.
One area where it might be relevant is the military. People are more likely to stay for longer (unvalidated assumption) and the same personnel jacket follows them if they are transferred.
It might also be thought of as a guide as to when to jump ship. If you have managed to get yourself categorized as a C, then leave. Start fresh somewhere else, take the learning with you, and discover if you have what it takes to make it as an A or B.
It would have been interesting to see if there was any difference relating to CYP1A2 (Cytochrome P450 1A2), the fast metabolizers and the slow metabolizers.
This also works for kitchens.
What is most interesting is that it begins to impact what one buys. It turns out that, after a decade or so, one can predict which 'must have' gadget or appliance is actually just a very seductive dotless wonder.
This also applies, on a larger scale, when one adds data to a medium like a sheet of paper, the graphite or ink adds to the mass of the storage medium.
But does this constitute data?
The maximum mass would be achieved by covering the entire sheet with graphite/ink which, it could be argued is not data (unless you consider it to be a binary cell in a larger byte of data).
I don't know the physics of thermal paper, but I suspect that it might be the opposite.
My point?
This is not evidence that data has mass, it is evidence that transcribing data onto a storage medium may change the mass of the storage medium, and that change maybe positive or negative.
Perhaps I should have this carved on my tomb stone...
Pay to enter would increase the risk of submitting a bug report.
However, if the submission fees were added to the bounty payable, then the risk reward changes in favour of the submitter of genuine bugs.
You could even have refund the submission fee in the case of a good faith non bug submission.
A little game theory can go a long way in improving the bug bounty system...
if everybody eats the whole foods they can afford, they will be healthier than if they eat an ultra high processed food diet.
The cost of living issue could actually work in favor of those with less money as they can afford less of the unprocessed meat and cheese, and would have to 'settle' for more lentils, frozen vegetables and other incredibly healthy and inexpensive food.
yes, I know the cultural reasons that will make this switch highly unlikely, but that is disconnected from the pyramid.
The popular takeaway from the pyramid will not result in a decrease in the popularity of takeaways, ready meals and other UHP foods.
The polarization of the debate is as unhealthy as the eating habits that desperately need changing.
This is one of those irritating articles where one agrees with the gist, but there are serious flaws in the support.
There are societies, even now, that don't have text. Yes, they represent a tiny fraction of 1% of the global population, but they do exist. And the beauty of text is that this level of nuance can be conveyed, a simplistic, inaccurate, broad brush approach is not needed.
Nor is it the oldest form of communication. Having recently started exploring the cave art record, the text informs me that this is at least an upper middle single digit multiple of the age of text.
Yes, a picture paints a thousand words, which can then be interpreted a thousand ways.
Text has the ability to convey precise, accurate, objective information, it does not, as this article demonstrates, necessarily do so.
And that's the problem with this interweb lark, made worse by aggregators who's algorithms can be gamed, and now we have stochastic LLMs adding to the remix, how do we know what is true?
The narrative related here is frighteningly believable, and, no doubt, so were all the reddit posts.
The difference between the narrative described by this narrative, and the narrative related in the narrative, is that one is death by a thousand cuts, the other either a well deserved take-down or an undeserved attempt at one.
I can't tell the difference, but reddit should be able to.
So this is really about whether reddit sees it's reputation as an asset to be monetized in the short-term, or invested in for the long-term. This is the classic tension between the brand manager and the brand guardian, maximize the cashflow or maximize the balance sheet value, and tells you almost everything important about a company's core culture.
How reddit handles this, it could be argued, will define reddit going forwards.
"The Constitution explicitly forbids Congress from issuing bills of attainder—laws that single out individuals for punishment without trial. While that restriction technically applies to the Legislative branch, the spirit of it clearly applies here. A president cannot simply declare someone an enemy of the state for contradicting a political narrative. That’s not national security—it’s authoritarianism, dressed up in executive language."
So the Constitution does not forbid it. All executive orders, it could be argued, are authoritarian, not just the ones that you happen to dislike.
The moral? Be damned careful to whom you give this authority.
Excuse my ignorance, but is it time to update the open source licenses in the light of this behavior?
If so, what should the evolved license wording be?
I appreciate that this could be easily circumvented by a 'bad actor', but it would make this abuse overt...