You mean illegally?

I have a strong suspicion that language prescribed by an Iranian official will have no bearing on what people call that region in English.

“Middle East” is a reference point from the British Isles where there is a more significant chunk of geography directly east of it. When you move into Central Europe, the ME region is called “near East” when translated literally. Because we are already a bit further east and the reference points change. There isn’t an English-language equivalent in the West because there’s mostly water.

Having exported this language to beyond mostly water to the new world, the designation stuck although it makes no sense from a North American perspective. If we all spoke a truly international version of Esperanto, things might be different. But that’s not how it worked out.

I don’t think ME as a term has acquired the same problematic stench as “orient” and variants thereof in English. Cardinal directions are quite resistant to that. The Confederate States of America haven’t ruined “South” as a term. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea hasn’t made “North” go out of style.

Why aren’t they automatically looking for business links between Slovenian domain vendors and the First Family? Melania is Slovenian after all and it would be such a misstep if not even her extended family got to profit from this one.

I don’t buy into “wood” obviously meaning “sandalwood.” If you have lived with carpenters, they smell like fresh timber and sweat. So if that wasn’t an option, I don’t think the contestant was specific enough.

The problems with describing this like one parabola are two-fold for me. If we look at the long arm of history, we as a species have been far less interconnected so knowledge wasn’t shared to the same extent it often is today. One of the reasons why a hypothetical Covid-819 would’ve killed more people. At the same time, various regions have gone through their own periods of trouble, dark ages, decays of empires, and religious doom. You’d have to interpolate quite heavily in the bottom part of the parabola to get started. Bronze tools could take a century to spread. Strictly speaking, Gutenberg didn’t invent book printing; China beat him to it. But the repercussions of his movable type were arguably far more reaching. Or more recently, the industrial revolution started around 1750 but didn’t affect a majority on this planet until about 50 years later. There were uncontacted people it never reached that were washed away by the 2006 tsunami. Where to plot these things on an overarching exponential graph become choices. And thus a statistic you’re forging yourself.

And then exponential means at some point we’re going to reach a point where we near constantly innovate stuff. You’d have to do the work of two scientific Nobel prizes before you had your first piss in the morning just to keep up with the pace. This pace of development isn’t sustainable. There has to be an out.

That’s why I would favour a model based on quantum leaps that show localised growth in hockey stick curves. Change today may seem fundamental and omnipresent. But 🫲 six seven 🫱 probably never reached North Korea.

Can you back up the claim of exponential change? For my money we get occasional quantum leaps that end in hockey stick curves.

Technology isn’t everything.

Does your research consider recency bias as well? More or less every generation looks at the world changing in front of them. And every generation considers this the most dramatic change ever. I remember the fall of the USSR and we all thought this is the most significant change in history - it was not. The internet and social media was the next big transformation and the sky was falling - we’re still here. All things considered, the generation in the right age bracket for military service in the late 1930s probably has a better claim on the most dramatic change happening in front of them. So I’m just wondering if you consider these biases?

I wonder if the more modern mobile network protocols require slightly more power than the 2-3G of old. It’s probably a rounding error; it would run forever™ minus an hour or so.

They give pronunciation guides. Or they’re effing around. It’s the internet.

What have rogue models effed with so far? A government website in Australia, derelict chat forums, and another AI company? I’m willing to believe that two things are happening at the same time. That sandboxing these agents will improve with these so-called breaches. And that companies like Amazon or Cloudflare are improving their security continuously with threat models. And if they don’t have rogue agents on their radar, that stack deserves to fall.

I wouldn’t lay blame here mostly at Google’s feet. They AI-err on the side of caution. I don’t know if Google finds itself as defendants in a court room right now where the influence of an LLM lead to killing or suicide. This sort of caution is the result of various user psychoses that we have learned exist in the world. Teenagers or other easily susceptible folks thinking they are Jesus, talking to god or aliens, etc. I would go so far as to say well done in a better safe than sorry kind of way in this case.

What we learn here is that the model doing search and the algorithm operate seemingly independently. And that the so-called AI results aren’t great. Water is wet, more at eleven.

Google had good search results from the late 90s to about the early 2010s. Nothing else about that company was not weird at any time. With glassholes jumping out of airplanes or them buying up almost the entire online ad market and then abusing their market position. What they are doing with Android has me this close to switching to an iPhone. And YouTube comes with its own Pandora’s box of challenges. They famously edited the “don’t be evil” stuff out of their mission statement. There are bigger Google fish to fry than this “AI summary.”

Who specifically would you say banned it from the internet?

You’re formulating arguments why I’m wrong. With the greatest of respect, that’s defeatism speaking. Difficult? Yes. Checkmate? No. It may take a crisis to get this going; the New Deal didn’t come from nowhere either.

You cannot fix all of these issues at once. You probably cannot fix a lot of these issues without first improving education levels within the population. A journey of 1000 miles begins with the first step.

Term limits for SC judges to some odd number of years for any new appointees is something both sides will be able to agree on. If nobody tries though, of course it won’t happen.

The US has been checkmated …

I’m going to take issue with this statement. Nobody has checkmated the US. If we have to stay in this metaphor, the US checkmated itself.

One of the biggest mistakes was to allot the same number of votes to Rhode Island as to California in the senate. A more proportionate voting system would do wonders for half the issues you listed. Appointing judges for life is another one. Financing election campaigns like that is also mad. Nobody forced Americans to do business like that.

This isn’t a game of chess where checkmate is irreversible. The sooner folks stop formulating arguments why I’m wrong or why these are insurmountable hurdles, the better for all of us.

While I do agree that with the cult clown car people in charge of the executive right now, there is an added difficulty to passing legislation. The Epstein Act part 1 has shown though there are ways. So regulation on so-called AI is still possible and not late like the article seems to suggest.

What’s the point of this article? To highlight that the sausage maker that is a parliamentary democracy is slow? Or to show how narrow majority margins cause long delays in passing legislation? I can’t imagine it’s only the lack of knowledge about so-called AI. I imagine many members don’t know that much about tax law, the intricacies of the military, or drugs in general. Yet we don’t question their qualifications when they pass legislation on those subjects. We elect people to these bodies not on the basis that they are experts at everything but for their ability to look into issues and form an opinion that hopefully most resembles ours. They cannot know everything, no matter how much they pretend. If that is the standard we hold them to, you’ll only get braggadocios assholes who will stand for elections.

When has a legislature ever been on top of the latest developments, especially in tech? It’s pretty much always reactive. The seatbelt and crumple zone came after the introduction of the automobile. OSHA didn’t predate the industrial revolution. Section 230 came after the WWW. Not by much in the grand scheme of things but still. We are what now? 4-5 years into this madness? It’s not unusual not to have great regulations set in stone.

I have only briefly lived in France and it’s a way back also. I never got the impression they were inflexible about eating times.

Do those people take a different month off?

Yes. It may be time for time and not a whole month at a time. Also keep in mind that those workers aren’t full-timers. ContRacts tend to be time-limited in that field, i.e. people get hired for a season with no guarantee for work after that. So people plan their own vacation time.

Edited typo

When potatoes came over from the New World, a lot of Europeans grew them as decorative plants. New shit makes people do weird stuff.

Not everybody is trying to make a business with so-called AI. The peddlers are just the loudest.

The companies promise their models can do all this stuff for paying customers. If the models were truly that capable, the so-called AI companies ought to be doing everything with them and be raking in the dough like mad. Which they’re not because they know the limitations of the models. It’s what economists call the bullshit gap between marketing and reality. And by economists I mean me.

Unless it’s an air gapped machine run for a specific reason, nobody should run Win7 in 2026. If it’s connected to the internet, you are doing that at your own peril. Obligatory switch to Linux.

“Censorship” is probably not quite the right word here, is it? You’re thinking more along the lines of privacy. Censorship is what a government does. And that would affect the content of the internet more than anything else you come in contact with. And that is roughly the same whether you run your browser on a Win7 or Win11 machine (save maybe some more modern features the outdated browsers cannot do).

If you’re worried about the spectre of age verification, I would suggest switching to Linux and investing into a VPN.

I remember the day when the training wheels came off my bike and it was glorious. The feeling of success you can only feel as a child when you have mastered something you think you should do. They didn’t come off because they were no longer cool. They were never cool to begin with. And you didn’t have much say in the matter anyway.

I am willing to believe that balance bikes to proper bikes is a better learning experience, according to the boffins. That doesn’t mean though that anybody who learned on training wheels is inferior. People who learned to ride a bike like that also won the Tour de France.

I think if I was caught like this, the last thing I’d want to do is talk to the media about it. Not even under a pseudonym. But this story is probably not here to make Google feel bad and return some of the money. This is a reminder for parents everywhere to review payment and parental settings on anything their kids use online. You can be smug enough to say my 8yo doesn’t stream on Twitch or whatever because why tf would you let them anyway. But you’re deleting the credit card off of Google Play because you forgot it was there because parenting makes you forgetful at times.