StopDisinfo910

> Are they doing the same kind of activity? Getting the same kind of cognitive development out of it?

Who cares as long as the game is good? There is no inherent moral value in the how with artistic creation. What matters is the end result.

And if people are happy with what they produce, who am I to judge them? I will happily give my opinion on the game but the act of creation is them.

Same with audiobook. You are adding value judgment where there doesn't need to be one. Is the Odyssey less significant because it used to be an oral story?

Why would you pay a subscription for a weather app in the EU when national providers are already so good?

I guess they wanted to focus on the US market at first because they know there is money to be made there.

Maybe but lobbying is extremely strong in SE Asia. It's hard to distinguish from governments putting pressure for something and companies suggesting it would be a good idea.

> Are Google so high on their own supply that they think people use their phones out of preference for the OS? Because frankly it's not very good

Honestly having gone back and forth between iOS and Android every three years or so, both OS are the same. It's not like the grass is really greener on the Apple side. The UX is virtually identical for anything that matters. Personally I put material Android above liquid glass iOS. The alleged polish of the Apple UX was lost on me when I had my last iphone.

The reason Google's moves are surprising has more to do with them embracing being a service player more and more with the arrival of Gemini and them having regulators breathing down their necks everywhere.

I guess they did it after the truly baffling US decision in the Epic trial but it's very likely to go against them in the EU.

Considering Cognite made a fortune in the oil and gas industry by basically allowing companies to toss them all their data, them automatically linking and contextualizing everything using a tunable knowledge graph and then giving access this domain model, I think you are onto something. A bit late to the party but yes, this party exists and LLM are useful there for once.

Amusingly most of this data then end up back into Excel or PowerBi but the unbundling and contextualizing itself is worth the price.

Semantic mapping was the answer all along. It just failed on the open web. The idea never died in the industrial world.

> You can create a bidir system that never requires annotations and uses unification to infer all types in the style of Haskell or OCaml.

There is no more bidir if you do that. It's just plain unification.

> In some sense I think HM == unification because you can't really implement HM without unification. The first time a type variable encounters another type you'd be stuck.

You can't implement HM without unification but you can do unification which is not HM. Actually a lot of what people call HM is not really HM but evolution of it and sometimes significant evolution.

Applies equaly to land mines and crack cocaine.

The tension between freedom and public health is obviously very real. That's why liberal democracies generally rely on public debate and expert opinions to decide what should be controlled and what should be widely available.

Turns out, the expert opinions on social media is not very good and very much in favour of a ban for minors. Also turns out that the public is apparently in support of the ban.

Not really, no. You can get localised unification but bidir as a whole like in Rust but you lose most of the advantage of unification. Hybrid systems are bidir for parts, unification for others.

But, I maintain that what the article calls HM is trully unification independantly of what's above. This is not about algorithm W. It's actually about the tension between solving types as a large constraint problem or using annotations to check.

> I believe it's because the governments (which are far more powerful than any "corporation", because they have the de facto monopoly of violence: Microsoft can sue you, but the government can just jail you) can then pressure said companies if there's something that is not liked, with all consequences that come from there.

But the idea that giving your ID changes anything is a fiction. These platforms already require you to provide your phone numbers or an email. They have your location. They already know who you are and they can already be pressured by the government for all that. They don't even need to be pressured actually. They willfully share a ton of information as has been shown time and time again. The ID that you can somehow get plausible deniability regarding the association between your social media profile and identity is a complete myth.

> There's no need to bring conspiracy theories in, FTR. The power of the government must be always limited and bound by strong chains, and this goes in the opposite direction.

I don't think a theorical, overblown and mostly fictitious increase in risks trumps the very real need to limit the armful impact of these actors. It makes for ok-ish lobbying but that's pretty much it.

The real question is unification vs bidir more than HM vs bidir.

Unification is simple, not very hard to implement and more powerful. Bidir gives better error messages and is more "predictable".

I personnaly lean strongly towards unification. I think you can get good enough error messages and what you lose with bidir is not worse it. But clearly the Rust core team disagreed. They clearly don't mind annotations.

Anyway, here is my non answer: it's a trade off.

The restricting law is mostly concerned with the age gating, not the how.

You can expect another law or directive to explain how it has to be done. In the EU, GDPR does apply so you can be sure that poorly storing ID copies for this purpose will not fly.

But, I think it's clearly what ID is for and a legitimate use case for electronic ID. ID is the tool the state uses to give you a way to prove you are who you pretend to be.

I think there's something a bit funny in worrying about giving a copy of your IDs to companies who already know everything about you from your full social graph to your political leanings and interests.

> So don’t allow accounts with ages set below the limit like they already do for under 13s. Why does this translate to every other site wanting my government ID or a scan of my face?

Because self inputed age fields don't work. People just lie to access what they want.

You have to understand that the goal here is not token compliance but actually limiting teenagers exposure to something we now know to be highly addictive and damaging to mental health.

Clearly, the market is not able to self restrict and will exploit every opportunities given to it. It's only logical to take stronger restriction. That's basically bringing regulations on social media on the same track as tobacco and alcohol.

Personally, I think it makes a lot of sense.

I think that's actually directly in agreement with what I said. Okta built their own thing on the side without touching the Linux stack and is very happy for you to turn to them. So did Authentik actually.

It's always been awful. OpenLDAP by itself is already attrocious and a pain to make work.

I have always been convinced it was on purpose. It's the point where you were supposed to decide paying Redhat is actually a good idea and nowadays it pushes towards a cloud based authentication solution you can integrate.

Realistically, who has any interest in fixing the mess?

We could also vote the policians protecting these uncompetitive markets out of power and let regulators do their job. There has been too many mergers in the component market.

You also have to look at the current status of the market. The level of investment in data centers spurred by AI are unlikely to last unless massive gains materialize. It's pretty clear some manufacturers are betting things will cool down and don't want to overcommit.

True if production capacity increases but it's an oligopoly and manufacturers are being very cautious because they don't want to cut into their margins. That's the problem with concentration. The market becomes ineffective for customers.

Don't get hung up on "14 years old". It's a classic journalist trop designed to get you to read their paper without putting too much weight on the actual content which is a paper thin, pun intended, PR fluff thing for The Society for Science. The prize is not even linked to the origami but on-site team challenges in a final event.

The origami is Miura-ori fold by the way and they are already used in plenty of fields. Fairly interesting stuff from the 60s. Would have made for a great article.

The kids tested some paper configurations and specific fold patterns. Really impressive stuff considering it was totally impossible to do with computer simulation and hasn't been studied to death in aerospace. Neat science fair project, awful headline.

It's more about losing a customer than about competition to me in the case of Nuvia. I guess technically if you squint hard enough you could say Arm and Qualcomm are competing for Qualcomm sells but that's a bit of a stretch.

The important things for Arm is not so much the few customers with competitive cores which are great marketing but the multitude of other customers who don't have the budget to design their own core. It's far from trivial as shown by the Google exemple.

To me, that seems like a misreading of the market.

Apple and Qualcomm don't sublicense so they are not really Arm competitors. Plus, ARM was always a convenient way to mutualise development costs without the risk of collusion. I am not sure it's changing.

You say people want to differentiate but Google constant failures to bring a state of the art offer with the Tensor shows that it's not that easy. Meanwhile Mediatek is competitive while remaining close to ARM design.

I don't think the market has changed that much on the high-end. The real question is how free will ARM be to export their future architectures. That's more where I see a risk.

That and the low-end being contested by Risk-V.

Unbalanced pawn structure is a feature of the Sveshnikov Sicilian but Caruana had done a lot of prep and it was obvious. Carlsen quicky left the main line for the boring 7. Nd5. Plus, Carlsen missed a lot of good moves because he had to play it safe. To me, it was boring chess of the highest level.

A lot of it felt like watching engines by proxy. One prepared well on a very complex opening. The other found the best meta counterplay and held until he reached the tie break.

Game 12 is a travesty. It was clear he just wanted to move to rapid.

The jean controversy was a couple of years after Magnus stopped defending the title. It has nothing to do with it. Magnus just doesn't care about the format of the world title.

I think something broke for him while playing Caruana in 2018. The classical games were a snooze fest of defensive plays after defensive plays and everything was settled in the rapid tie break in a fairly unsatisfying manner.

He is not the first to complain about that by the way. Fischer hated the format too.

The freestyle championship was better in pretty much every way.

Where have you seen it used outside of Americans pretending their culture is somehow a standard and NATO apologists? The world doesn't even exist as such in my own language. It's a staple on Hacker News and nearly always for the bad reasons. I'm supposed to politely nod and shut up when people are casually erasing my culture?

I guess it's cue like on cue but it's late on a Sunday. You will have to excuse my brain.

It wasn't a nitpick by the way. I deeply resent American using "the West" like if my own country and culture was somehow fungible in their experience. They are not. We don't have that much in common. That doesn't include a legal tradition, or a conception of what freedom of speech should be, neither does it include values or history.

Edit: Enjoy downvoting me. It doesn't make what I said any less true. If you think the various European countries can be grouped with the US in a coherent whole, you are deeply deluding yourselves. They can't even be lumped together.

I would like it a lot better without the mention to the "West", which, as usual, is a code word for: "I want to pretend my point extend outside the USA but I have absolutely no knowledge of how true that is. I don't intend to do any research because that would demand efforts from me so bear with my casual imperialism". Queue the purely American historical lesson following.

Overproducing is often cheaper than losing sales because of the fixed costs of producing a batch and the externalities of destroying your inventory not being priced in. Some brands also find it more interesting to destroy stocks than reduce prices because it protects their brand values. Well, now, that's illegal.

I think I have this discussion on HN everytime Teams comes up but it really is a great piece of software for a typical office worker. File sharing is incredible. You get a SharePoint and collaborative editing in a seamless way. Video conf is great and work great with Teams compatible room booking system and room video material. The chat part barely matters. People don't use Teams to chat. It's a collaboration hub. That's what Google is missing actually.

Slack is very much developers software in comparison.

Wave's core ideas are at the heart of modern collaborative tools. It's just the UX that was poor. If they stuck at it and refined it, they could be the leader of this segment. Something that I can say for a lot of what Google does. They quit too fast and maybe more importantly they don't use the knowledge they got from their failures to improve.

It's the same with Inbox which remains the best email client I ever used but weirdly Gmail never got the core UX ideas which made it works so well. I would like to say Google doesn't get UX but clearly they have great UX designers on board. It's just that they probably never get final say and are not first class citizen.

For me, it's an issue of discipline. A lot of Google products seems to be built like R&D projects with the mindset which goes with it. They don't have the discipline to do the boring refining work that great UX requires.

> I don't think we should cheer on one of the largest companies in the world to build a product to get them even more enterprise stranglehold.

Depends of how you see it. At the moment, if you want a good productivity suit of tools, you have Microsoft or Microsoft because Google is hampered by their lackluster chat client.

People would like some competition.

> The wording here is fascinating, mainly because they're effectively acting as arbiters of "vibes".

That's not really accurate. The EU actually legislated in a way which is very typical of how countries regulate things which are now to carry hard to characterized and varied risks.

Companies have to carry out a risk assessment and take appropriate preventive actions when they find something. The EU audits the assessment. That's how finance has been regulated for ages.

It's all fairly standard I fear.

I think you are making two mistakes here.

You think you need to bow your head to management in your job which, while you technically are under their authority in some ways, isn't really how I advise you to frame your relationship with your work. You are here to bring value and your manager is there to help you/ensure you do that. Still that's a framework not a rigid guiding stick. You need to learn how to manage/bend your manager if you want to thrive in the corporate world.

Same with customers. They hire you because they need your expertise. It's a dance not a tether and you need to be two to tango.

It seems to me you are not putting enough value in what you bring to the table. It's easier to say than it is to feel it and believe it but I guess it's never a bad thing to tell someone.