budududuroiu

Not surprised by this move, the UK is preparing to silence dissent, for a very simple reason: tough times ahead. Guardian reported yesterday the UK might face food shortages, their young are increasingly burdened with supporting the triple lock through their taxes, and people are making exit plans rathert than be milked for their hard work.

> The plan is a graph

I much prefer giving the LLM a REPL loop, and injecting all the tools as functions inside the REPL loop.

That means that the LLM isn't constrained to writing a DAG, it can write code that loops, exits early, etc.

> Studios at $5500. 1 beds at $7500.

Zillow quotes: "The average rent for all bedrooms and all property types in New York, NY is $3,710."

Where are your figures sourced from?

I've had this exact feeling about the article. I partly switched off after that paragraph

That's a good thing. We complain about lack of industrialisation. China has historically protected their fledgling industries, if we want industrialisation back, we need to as well, to the detriment of mindless consumption of cheap stuff

> Do you have zero idealism or regard for internationally agreed upon rules? Do you want a world where might is right?

Internationally agreed upon rules don't come from first principles, they're downstream from power. The world was, and will always be, might makes right.

You're asking too much from bureaucrats that stand to directly gain post-mandate by consulting the companies they legislate for, and also believe that the legitimacy of the EU as a whole should be driven by output (economic prosperity, etc), rather than input (democratic mandates, political participation of their constituents)

> the laws and regulations imposed upon citizens are hostile.

Let's not forget that these laws are supported and pushed for by national governments in the EU Council, there's no shadowy cabal that materializes these laws out of thin air, the EU is a blame-laundromat for domestically unpopular laws passed through backroom deals

The slipperiness comes from the fact that the EU already admits that scanning of private messages didn't improve the catching and prosecution of perpetrators. Also, the biggest lobbyists for breaking E2EE argue that criminals are moving to encrypted platforms, and targeting encrypted platforms is actually the thing we need to finally put a dent in stopping the dissemination of CSAM

If local scanning of CSAM flags a post, that post will have to be analysed by a human operator. If you send a sensitive photo of your kid's rash to your spouse, and it gets flagged, are you ok with a random cyber enforcement officer seeing your child in that way?

"We decide on something, leave it lying around and wait and see what happens. If no one kicks up a fuss, because most people don't understand what has been decided, we continue step by step until there is no turning back". -- Jean-Claude Juncker, VDL's predecessor

I agree, my point about political capital was about the overton window shifting to allow a more mainstream EU-skeptic platform for national parties, platforms which up until recently were easily labelled Russophiles or European traitors for US money.

I was aware that VDL obtained her role by routing around the Spitzenkandidaten process, but I was never aware that her confirmatory vote was done in this way.

Her unpopularity at home also reinforces the idea that unpopular politicians can be sent to Brussels, because "in Brussels, you can't hear them scream".

Afaik, EU rules provide for urgent procedure only for proposals at first reading, while here it was used to compress a second reading vote and skip committee, just perfectly timed for the last sitting before recess.

The absolute majority seems to be an anti-paralysis instrument, where the onus is on the Parliament to reject something put in motion by the Council. I think the the asymmetry is that a vote to trigger the urgency procedure only requires a simple majority, whereas a rejection of that same legislation requires absolute majority.

To my reading, this reinforces the idea that Parliament is designed to be more of a rubber stamp for the Council.

Sure, then just let the normal legislative process run its course, no need to bleed political capital and get an already polarised electorate to hate the EU even more by shoving this legislation through in this way.

The Internet Watch Foundation, the group, funded almost entirely by big tech, who pushed for this vote to be held under emergency procedure, is already at work lobbying for the end of E2EE [1].

In a couple years time, Chat Control 2.0 will come about, and the same tyrants will use the EU admission [2] that there is no evidence that suspicionless scanning of private communications has led to an increase in criminal convictions or in rescued children to argue that we need to go further, and break E2EE.

[1]: https://www.iwf.org.uk/resources/end-to-end-encryption-and-k... [2]: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELE...

The regulation was rejected today with 314 votes against, 276 in favor, and 17 abstentions, but because of Metsola's lawfare that classified this regulation as under an "urgent procedure", an absolute majority was required to reject.

Roberta Metsola's actions this week jeopardise the legitimacy of the EU project as a whole.

It's clear that member countries use the EU as a blame-laundering mechanism to pass domestically unpopular laws, but the forcing of this vote under the urgency procedure that requires absolute majority to reject, on the last EP session before summer break is so blatant that it might awaken people that might've overlooked the structural failures of the EU and finally radicalise them

EDIT: bad wording, it's not that the urgency procedure causes the voting to require absolute majority, it's that an absolute majority second-reading is forced through an emergency procedure which is designed for first readings of legislation that's the implied meaning above

"We decide on something, leave it lying around, and wait and see what happens. If no one kicks up a fuss, because most people don't understand what has been decided, we continue step by step until there is no turning back." -- Jean-Claude Juncker

Other governments across the Channel also want to protect children online, while at the same time dismissing thousands of reports of grooming, for fear of being labelled "racist".

The Internet Watch Foundation, an organisation funded by almost all of big tech, is already at work pushing for client side scanning next [1], for the children, of course.

[1] https://www.iwf.org.uk/policy-work/preventing-the-upload-of-...

> Calling it the Troika makes it sound like it's some separate thing.

It was because of the Troika that the Tsipras ignored the result of the referendum and continued with more austerity, no? So in this case, pointing at the Troika is right? Am I misunderstanding something?

The EU is beyond reform, this law targets exactly this: nascent political projects that threaten the status quo.

I believe that the EU will cause so much strife that the long peace we've enjoyed on the continent will be brought to an end, not because of the EU, but because of the wedges drawn between pro-EU and EU-skeptic countries.

Even if there was no lobbying or corruption, the EU is structurally flawed: the Council, which is made up of 27 mandates that were given for local politics, is used by nations to launder their domestically unpopular laws through an EU indirection layer, the Commission has no electoral link (VDL was appointed, when afaik the Parliament should nominate a Commission President), the Parliament, the legislative body, has no legislative initiative, and despite rejecting laws drafted by the Commission, as we've seen, those laws can be forced through indefinitely until the Commission gets the rubber stamp it needs.

I used to think Varoufakis' critique of the EU being a structurally anti-democratic union was just coming from the angle of an edgy leftist that was forced by the Troika to do austerity.

Day in and day out, the EU proves Varoufakis right.

The median age of a youth extremists is 19 [1], with the mean being ~20 (study rounded up).

The main issue with this bill is that it requires a huge cost in civic freedoms, with questionable benefits to societal stability. Not only do most youth extremists first offend past the threshold this age verification would catch, this legislation lets big tech off the hook for designing addictive algorithms in the first place, since "there are no kids on the platform anymore, and if there are, they're breaking the law".

[1]: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1057610X.2025.2...

I'm not sure I agree, people say unhinged things on TikTok/Facebook using accounts that have their full government name and/or showing face. I doubt deanonymisation would help.

To me "people will be on their best behaviour if they can't be anonymous" sounds eerily similar to Larry Ellison's "people will be on their best behaviour if they're constantly surveilled".

to argue that the success of the far right nationalists is solely off the back of Russian disinformation campaigns ignores the material reality experienced by far right party voters

Has anyone else noticed that Deepseek v4 running in Claude Code will try to read, list, tail as many files/logs/... as it can for even the most simple tasks?

The analogy would be an alcohol shop employee with a photographic and infinite memory which then staples an AirTag to your skin to see where you're headed off after you've purchased your booze

You can literally hear the 24h whir of the data centres, what are you talking about?

Dude wrote an essay around infrasound being pseudoscience and chose to ignore the obvious, audible, constant hum.