as the PRA outlines (and the article goes through), publishing notice to the Federal Register does not suffice to get around the PRA, it is just a step in the process.
It is just "notice" of their intention to do it. They still have to do the other pieces, including getting their OMB control number.
Of course, as the article points out, all of this is pretty moot, if they're going to get the police to drag you away and not let you fly, irrespective of the position in law.
If you are flipping through the reading to find a quote, then printed readings are hard to beat, unless you can search for a word with digital search. But speed reading RSVP presentation beats any kind of print reading by a mile, if you are aiming for comprehension. So, it is hard to say where the technology is going. Nobody has put in the work to really make reading on an iPad as smooth and fluid as print, in terms of rapid page flipping. But the potential is there. It is kind of laughable how the salesman will be saying, oh it has a fast processor, and then you open up a PDF and scroll a few pages fast and they start being blank instead of actually having text.
I get that this is essentially vibe coding a language, but it still seems lazy to me. He just asked the language model zero-shot to design a language unprompted. You could at least use the Rosetta code examples and ask it to identify design patterns for a new language.
I was thinking the same. Maybe if he tried to think instead of just asking the model. The premise is interesting "We optimize languages for humans, maybe we can do something similar for llms". But then he just ask the model to do the thing instead of thinking about the problem, maybe instead of prompting "Hey made this" a more granular, guided approach could've been better.
For me this is just a lost of potential on the topic, and an interesting read made boring pretty fast.
This was mainly an exercise in exploration with some LLMs, and I think I achieved my goal of exploring.
Like I said, if this topic is interesting to you and you'd like to explore another way to push on the problem, I highly recommend it. You may come up with better results than I did by having a better idea what you're looking for as output.
I tried a thread, I got that both LLMs and humans optimize for the same goal, working programs, and the key is verifiability. So it recommended Rust or Haskell combined with formal verification and contracts. So I think the conclusion of the post holds up - "the things that make an LLM-optimized language useful also happen to make them easier for humans!"
I update Linux maybe once a year. Sure, there are security vulnerabilities. But I'm behind a firewall. And meanwhile, I don't have to spend any time dealing with update issues.
But Windows is made for the big masses. It's definitely a good thing that Microsoft forces Auto-Updates, because otherwise 95% of people would run around with devices that have gaping security holes. And 90% of these people are not being a firewall 100% of their time.
Side effect unfortunately is that they are shoving ad- and bloatware down your throat through these updates.
But that is, because Microsoft does not care about the end user at all. It's not the fault of auto-updates.
Logic minimization is kind of boring? I had to solve a problem once and the answer was still to use the espresso software from the 1980s. It is a pretty specialized problem and honestly I don't see how you would improve on it, besides integrating the digital circuit design research. But in terms of software, there is not really any reason to use a Boolean logic formula instead of just passing around the truth table directly.
I'm wondering if a firewall is a solution here. Don't mess around with the stupid device settings. Just block the Xbox store, and then presumably Minecraft uses different server IPs, so you can let those through.
Research from the University of Amsterdam’s IViR “Global Online Piracy Study” (survey of nearly 35,000 respondents across 13 countries) found that for each content type and country, 95% or more of pirates also consume content legally, and their median legal consumption is typically twice that of non‑pirating legal users.
Fun fact, this study was financed by YouTube to create a legal shield.
In 2017/2018, they were in the position where MPAA and RIAA were saying: "Piracy costs us billions; Google must pay" + they had European Parliament on their ass.
Google financed that 'independent' study to support the view
"Piracy is not harmful and encourages legal spend".
So the credibility of "independent" studies, is something to consider very carefully.
My real world observations agree with the direction of the study, so I don’t entirely dismiss it as fake based on its funding source.
I am cautious about the conclusion, though. It seems clear there is a spectrum from “unscrupulously pirate everything” to “consume legitimately after pirated discovery”, and quantification is necessary.
No, you misunderstood the comment, it said that paying nothing is compelling, not that paying something was inconceivable or something; it was a response to a comment with a common misconception that pirating is only some "service problem"
I agree with your earlier comment (GGP) and feel like you're contradicting yourself here. "Too expensive" is either a service problem or at least directly adjacent to it. It's distinct from "well if I can get away with piracy then I'll do it". To say that free is a compelling price is to imply the latter as opposed to the former (at least imo).
Yeah but if a pirate would have not paid the full price why care? It is by definition not a lost sale, the most likely outcome is just an increase by one the player count
Because the price isn't binary? Also, the total spend isn't fixed either, it depends on how easy it's to pirate. So it's by definition still lost revenue, even if later/at reduced price
Consider reality instead, you can make any fantasy case you want:
C. You didn't pirate, but played because your friends were deeply into it, so you skipped buying lunch to save money and pay for the game (pirating was hard for this specific DRM). You bought it at a discount on sale (remember, the price isn't fixed?). That feeling of overcoming hardship and friendship fused into a very positive experience, making it 10 times more likely for you to buy the next version than in A. or B. The overall likelihood still was tiny because now you have a family and don't have time to play, so that and
D. Considering the amount of uncertainty (your game company will go out of business in 25 years) the value of your "more likely" is $0
Not paying full price is not a "lost sale". People unwilling to pay full price wait for a discount or price reduction. Look at how popular the seasonal Steam sales are. Pirating the game very likely means they never purchase it at any price, which _is_ a lost sale.
I never paid for games as a kid (starting with 8 years and first PC). We didn’t have the money until much later. Other friends and uncles had games, we copied it all. Eight years later (with 16) I bought two game compilations for birthday and Christmas. Around 40 games, no more than 2 or 3 years old. I had fun for years.
And then much later being a university student, I had money of my own and have bought games I liked. Never pirated to save money. And you know, GOG came along, and I was thrilled having the old games from my childhood again as digital legal copy. With manuals and addons. I bought 20+ old DOS games I already knew. Better late than never.
For me, the entire inbox is this DBTC folder. I have notifications set up on my smartwatch and I triage each email in real-time as it comes in. If it's urgent, I act on it. If it is important or I want to follow up, then I add it to my (separate) to-do list, with a Google tasks voice command. And otherwise I just ignore the notification and the email sits there in the inbox until I feel like dealing with it. I use the unread status and pick things off in occasional focus sessions. Some things never get "read", and that's because they don't matter. Zero bandit stuff because I know exactly what's in my inbox at any given time, at least up to what my analog brain can hold. It fits right into the old "I heard a noise. What is it?" routine humans used when we were hunter-gatherers.
Came here to say this. When I'm really pressed for time, I use the custom stars in Gmail to indicate the type of followup needed - reply, separate task, etc.
Well, so what the actual ruling was was that use of the books was okay, but only if they were legally obtained. And so the authors could proceed with a lawsuit for illegally downloading the books. But then presumably compensation for torrenting the books was included as part of the out of court settlement. So the lesson is something like AI is fine, but torrenting books is still not acceptable, m'kay wink wink.
Well apparently Congress passed a law that said TSA could just demand money as long as they published a notice in the federal register.
reply