Also, public officials like to be exempt because of professional requirements. They delivered the argument for it to be declared illegal violating a few constitutions.
Also because it is an undemocratic technocracy (warranted polemic) and the average citizen cannot sue before the EU judiciary, the national courts have to kill it. Of course such a process will take years...
I spent 5 years working at a place without an ORM. Due to sharding and scalability issues, an ORM wasn't possible (the tech was nearly 20 years old when I left, so they didn't get some of the later database scaling tech). When I went to a company with an ORM, I had problems.
Namely, the ORM got in my way so much. I knew exactly which query to run and how to word it efficiently, but getting the ORM to generate sane SQL was nearly impossible. I eventually had to accept my fate of generating shitty SQL at every company since then...
That being said, I'll always advocate for ditching an ORM if given the chance and the expertise is available. If nobody knows why you generally wouldn't want to put an index on a boolean column, we're probably good. If people think it will help performance on a randomly set boolean field, we should probably stick with an ORM.
It's very rare that someone proactively tries to be more caring to others. I try to be one myself. I'm so rude and disinterested usually. Especially to other guys.
If Google loses Chrome though, it will no longer be pre-installed on Chromebooks and Android. They will just fork Chromium, call it something else, and pre-install that. Sure they might lose some Windows users who miss the news reports and don't install the replacement and keep using Chrome, until their bookmark sync stops working since that relies on proprietary Google account integration.
Any evidence the prosecutor uses that is potentially exculpatory must be disclosed to the defendant. So your questions raise why they wouldn't: they think the defense can't find out. And it's arguably likely that they won't. But if they do, it will not only invalidate that single case, it could potentially trigger retrials of hundreds of cases because now a bunch of people know that Officer Flock is on the Brady list.
And one final thing about this... the prosecutor (who has probably said some variation of "ignorance of the law is not an excuse" to try to get a conviction) can't claim ignorance as a defense to a Brady violation. Failing to disclose, whether they knew or not, is a Brady violation.
The post is based on a misconception. If you read the blog post linked at the end of this message, you'll see how a very small GPT-2 alike transformer (Karpathy nano-gpt trained to a very small size) after seeing just PGN games and nothing more develops an 8x8 internal representation with which chess piece is where. This representation can be extracted by linear probing (and can be even altered by using the probe in reverse). LLMs are decent but not very good chess players for other reasons, not because they don't have a world model of the chess board.
I'm not sure where you're getting this from. Repeated studies continue to affirm that COVID is spread by respiratory droplets and that masks are effective in reducing transmission.
There are many reasons that you could research with a quick search but simply put, it breaks the anonymity of web use and has huge implications for intentional and unintentional surveillance and data misuse. What is asked for here is much more and much more strongly linked to an individual than the data you refer to.
It requires everyone to upload either ID and/or high quality photos & videos of themselves to a random company. Not just one company one whomever a website chooses for age verification, which can include doing it themselves. This creates multiple massive treasure troves of IDs that will attract hacking attempts (for example the Tea app breach). It creates opportunity for blackmail from this data (for example the Ashley Madison breach but much worse). For those age verification services that require a photo/video, that creates a resource for deep fakes. Plus any 15 year old boy worthy of their digital device will be able to get around age verification using fake id/photos or a VPN, whilst a less savvy adult trying to access information about quitting drinking or drug abuse will face a barrier.
And this is for ANY website that has a very broad range of content that the OSA mandates age verification for. It's easier for a website to err on the side of caution and just block the UK. That especially includes websites that have zero reporting back to Meta/Google/etc... for usual marketing profiling. If anything it pushes more people into the limited, monitored and advertising driven Meta/Google web.
Are any countries in the EU a lot less online than the rest, to the point that this matters more than a few percentage points? Even grandmas in Eastern Europe have smartphones now, and I don't think the EU has expanded to Sub-Saharan Africa quite yet (unless you want to count Réunion).
I honestly don't think it's really all down to being greedy. Even the Linux desktop suffers from this to some extent.
I think it's because UI design is very much something that can't really be "solved" in the traditional sense, so a lot of us use our own opinions when we inevitably find a corner case that isn't working exactly the way we want.
Interesting. The reason why companies aren't trying their best yet into non-static weights/online learning is probably (cloud) logistics. It seems simpler, easier and cheaper to serve a static, well-evaluated, and tuned model, rather than trying to let it learn alongside a specific user or all users.
> "Has been abolished in 1966" says that it was abolished in 1966 and it remains abolished today.
That meaning would be expressed as "has been abolished since 1966", unless it is still 1966 when the idea is being expressed, in which case "has been abolished in 1966" works instead; "has been abolished" is a present perfect (passive voice) construction so "in <past time period>" doesn't make sense with it, while "since <past time period>" or "in <current time period>" does.
In Proof-of-Work the cost of the work is what keeps the network honest. If the work has value then an attacker is free to invest as many resources as I want into subverting the network. Even a failed attack can still be profitable, just less so.
In another scenario, where the works value is less then the cost you're still hoping that at no point in the future will an attacker figure out a way to do the work at a net profit.
The only way the network can be trusted is if the work has definitely now and always, 0 value.
Ah, lets assemble the heroes of the enlightenment again- railing against the christian faith- because unlike the other unspeakable one, this one is tame and toothless now.
Such heroics!
"Ecrasez le infame" goes so much easier over the tongue, then allah il nakbah!
One is risk free- the other might end one up like salaman rushdie!
The enlightenment has betrayed 2 billion people, who suffer in the worst of dungeons, the dungeon of the mind called a religiously ruled society. Instead of trying to find a way in and out - we cheer on the benighted to spread this nonsense!
The enlightenment has failed itself, for it has not resisted the temptation of human self-idealization! It has never walked the final mile, though all data about humanity is there!
Less we become biologic windup tin toys, we rather spend our days constantly trying to be slapstick heroes failing our own expectations!
He who searches his battles with injustice in the past- is a coward and traitor to the enlightenment, fight in the present, i dare you!
Also because it is an undemocratic technocracy (warranted polemic) and the average citizen cannot sue before the EU judiciary, the national courts have to kill it. Of course such a process will take years...