somewhereoutth

Except that in the nascent EU single market, the native language is English. Of course you should be fluent in the language of the country in which you work/live, but increasingly this will be less important - assuming that the EU wants any chance of competing with US/China that is.

Except it is unclear how that lifestyle can be better than what we have now, and until we have technology that allows perfect pass-through in both directions (as if like glasses) - which may be physically impossible - there are drawbacks that make that lifestyle fundamentally worse than what we have now.

Nine months of winter followed by three months of bad weather

"Never enter a pub with a flat roof" (UK)

Such pubs tend to be part of (run-down) housing estates (what might be called 'Projects' in the US), with attendant clientele.

It's a good rule of thumb if you are unfamiliar with an area!

Meanwhile in JavaScript land, config is simply another js file, with all the Object and Array literal goodness that that gets us, and the full language environment backing it up.

Another option would be to distribute wealth more fairly, so e.g. inner city apartments are used for young professionals instead of as occasional holiday homes for the wealthy.

- lots of hype

- technically complex

- use cases uncertain

- except for crime/spam/other unpleasantness

- Nvidia is smiling

- cooking the planet

seems like it to me!

and bear in mind there was no supplemental oxygen in 1918.

This is blockchain all over again isn't it.

Not such a crackpot theory in my opinion - the tools we use to communicate design surely will influence what we design.

If it became the norm, politicians wouldn't need to encode it into law - they'd have 'won' already.

The question I suppose really is to what extent society (through the agency of the law and elected representatives) can police (or more precisely in this case to prevent the policing of) private forums like company internal communication systems. I'd argue that simply being privately owned does not put up a perfect barrier to society, and that society does have a legitimate interest in how such forums are run.

There seems to be this idea in the US that any form of tyranny and oppression is ok, so long as it is not the government that is doing it.

Whether it is through law, custom, or company policy, anything that stifles political debate weakens our democracy. To be clear, that does not include or allow hate speech or incitement, which are identifiably different.

Of course we should balance this with the needs of the business in keeping company communications 'on topic' as it were, and to avoid damaging professional relationships.

If, as a politician/party, you wanted to exert complete control over a population, then banning talk about politics at work (where lets face it the majority of people spend the majority of their lives), and ensuring companies don't talk about politics themselves either, would probably be an essential step.

Given that a VR headset places an unbalanced, unusual, not insignificant weight (pulling down the front of the head) on delicate and vital structure that is the neck, I think the onus would be on the manufacturers to show that it is safe, rather than vice versa. Everything else you wear on your head is either balanced (helmets) or very light weight (glasses).

> Some magic device which can solve any problem using a single linear pass?

You mean like a calculator?

That assumes that the current crop of LLMs are a fundamental technological shift.

Furthermore, rights holders did it for file sharing, why not AI too?

Depending on the outcome of the NYT case, I.P. may in fact be the death of (profitable) AI.

One problem with AI (vs e.g. Google search) is that there is no mechanism for attribution. So it is impossible for rights holders to understand whether their works are being monetised (unlike, say, Spotify).

Should NYT win, then either AI services will have to pay into a (very large) common pot for rights holders, which likely will make AI uneconomic (even if it does turn out to have some business benefit), or (paid) AI services will simply be banned.

But by prompting for 'in the style of' effectively you are mechanically rearranging everything he wrote without adding anything yourself. So not so different really, and I can see how lawyers for the plaintiff may make a convincing argument along those lines.

> one has become such a dominant feature of my social life that it is simply named “The Girls,” as if there were no other girls. (The act of naming of a group chat in iMessage indicates, to some degree, its staying power, no matter how silly the name itself may be.) Thus “The Girls” has become one of the first places any of us would look to make social plans. At least, I think so — it is highly possible that for one or another of us there is another group chat, totally unknown to me, that is more important.

I'm a Gen X guy, but this is exactly how it works nowadays. WhatsApp of course, not iMessage in Europe.

Well it isn't is it? Any more than adjusting a word from an actual Terry Pratchett novel.

yes, exactly.

Likewise "write a novel in the style of Terry Pratchett"

As it turns out, low/zero interest rates since 2008 have led to asset bubbles just about everywhere - which of course benefits wealth holders. Housing being the most egregious example.

Hopefully the return to normal rates will deflate those asset bubbles.

I think that there is a strong argument that to be truly transformative (in a copyright moral/legal sense), the work must have been altered by human hands/mind, not purely or mainly by an automated process. So find/replace and AI is out, but reinterpreting and reformulating by human endeavour is in.

I do wonder whether that will become accepted case law, assuming something like that is argued in the NYT suit.

The real startling link is between wealth inequality and high crime.

However surely 'riding shotgun' (i.e. being there to help customers when things go wrong) on self checkouts is more interesting than mindlessly scanning items all day? (I don't know, I've done neither)

Furthermore, if there is less work to be done in supermarkets, then people can spend more time doing more interesting/productive work or simply enjoying their leisure. The issue is not that this (or any) automation is destroying people's livelihoods, but that the value added is being predominately captured by the already wealthy.

Portugal does suffer from an excess of 'work is for the workers' mindset, which is part of the reason it is so poor (compared to other Western European countries).

Code refactoring with unit tests is fine when it is within the unit test units, but when it crosses unit boundaries the tests often must be re-written, doubling the effort required.

And it will be the most adventurous/industrious/inventive/free-minded 30%.

This has happened before, when many people went to the New World (Brazil) as the French loomed closer in the Peninsular War.

Before that, the best and brightest of Portuguese society were wiped out by the earthquake of 1755.

> foreigner offers 2-Nx

or they realise they can make a killing on short term lets / AirBnb. A Portuguese acquaintance of mine proudly related how her family was converting her deceased grandmother's place into 2 (two!) AirBnBs - they'd even found a little old lady down the road to do the cleaning.

The Portuguese are lovely but they can be completely oblivious to the world around them sometimes.

I understand what you are saying, but on the face of it we have:

"my normal string"

`my templated string`

vs

"my normal string"

STR."my templated string"

probably we can agree which looks cleaner (though I grant, maybe not as 'pluggable')

Unfortunately the housing market is rather more complicated than simple supply and demand. Houses aren't lemons or bicycles.

Where you sit on the 'available income for housing' curve determines the location and quality of the house/apartment/tent you live in. If lots of people with higher incomes appear, then you get moved down accordingly. If lots of tourists with higher propensity to spend on temporary accommodation appear, you get moved down accordingly. If lots of 'funny money' turns up looking for a place to be parked, you get moved down accordingly.

Where people get distressed if is the location and quality that they can afford is not reasonable to them (either actually or by their perception).

Building high quality well-located homes may help (if that is even possible), as everyone can 'move up' to the next rung on the quality/location ladder. However you may get induced demand, as the slight drop in prices brings more high earners/tourists/funny-money, in which case normal earners will not see the benefit.

Alternatively, restricting high-earners/tourists/funny-money will move normal earners up the ladder, without having to lay a single brick. However there may be some economic downsides to that, depending on what exactly is proposed.

For example banning AirBnB would likely be a large net positive to most European cities.