This is a repeating phenomenon, and probably worse on land. Fitness and run tracking apps also reveal troop locations and concentrations on land (location clusters reported by apps targeted at non-local-language audiences stick out like a sore thumb).
How do you know this? It's been confirmed that you can use adb to temporarily bypass verification on a per-app basis, yes, but from what I can see, there's no indication that sideloading one app over adb will also skip the 1-day period.
This matters if you're sideloading an app store like F-Droid, because sideloaded app stores still have to go through PackageInstaller [1], which probably still enforces verification checks for adb-sideloaded apps?
I love this new information about birth rates and WFH, and totally support following it to higher birth rates.
But the article framing as if the pronatalists somehow knew of the birth rate benefit and maliciously used it to counter their stated goals is too heavy-handed.
How about framing this as the new information that it is and getting the information out there in a positive way so that it can be used in both government and corporate policy?
At the start of WFH, we were all* rather more worried about the pandemic and what the shops had in stock than childcare.
By the end of the pandemic, it was more of a social battle between those who wanted to maintain the new normal and those who absolutely loathed it, and again nobody* really cared about childcare.
Closest anyone got to caring about childcare at any point was home-schooling and the value of air filters in classrooms.
* I am of course being excessively absolutist with this language, very little is all-or-none.
Sure, but I didn't think about this specific topic in any direction until this article. That's the great thing about articles and media, they spread thoughts and connections that might not be obvious to folks who are focused on other things.
I'm thankful I live somewhere I can pay $300/month for daycare. I think it's even cheaper now and capped at like $400 no matter how many kids you have in daycare.
We tried to have them at home while WFH a few months during covid when everything was shut down. That didn't work. lol.
I don’t understand the reasoning to have children if you don’t want to spend time with them and rather would pay someone to do that for you (not addressing directly at you). Being able to spend time with your child is a gift which passes by very quickly.
Unless you're independently wealthy, even the most traditional two parent nuclear family with a married mom and dad requires at least one parent to spend a significant portion of their day away from their children earning a living. I'm not sure why you would so strongly object to both parents doing that when you would presumably not object to just one doing the same.
WFH kind of solves that. Instead of taking coffee breaks or going to lunch with the colleagues presumably one of the working spouses can spend those breaks with the family. Now, I am looking at this problem from the European perspective where one of the spouses receive childcare payments and is allowed not to go to work for 1-2 years. I know about American system (12 weeks off) and it's beyond insane to me.
I commented specifically regarding your wording about what's easier. I support the view that daycare is something you have to do reluctantly, not that it's the easy way out. Over the years I had seen too many of my colleagues who "prefer working from the office" because there are small children at home. That implies that the other spouse (every time it's the mother) who is staying at home taking care of them.
The article at least partially addressed that. The argument isn't that the pronatalists aren't truly in favor of higher birthrates, it's that they're selectively in favor of higher birthrates for certain groups of people and thus support solutions focused on those groups such as expensive fertility technology like artificial wombs while opposing more generally applicable approaches like workplace flexibility.
I think the article is on the right track, but it misses also mentioning the conservative politics angle. The right-wing version of pronatalism also includes a pretty obvious implicit, if not entirely explicit, goal to return to the 1960s model of family life where the husband worked while the wife stayed home with the kids. Offering women workplace flexibility and giving them the option to both work and have a family runs counter to that societal vision.
Most oil production and refining capacity is east of the Rockies and transported to major population centers using pipelines. The Rockies, Sierra Nevada, etc. make pipelines much more cost prohibitive since you have to pump it over the mountains; trains and trucks are a lot more expensive to use for transport; and tankers would have to use the Panama Canal, which besides being a much longer distance also has usage fees.
None. But you don't put a non refined cruide oil in your diesel, it not only has to be refined but DELIVERED to your country. Depending where that country is, delivery could be even 60% of the final price. And when, you know, tankers with oil explode due to drone attacks, you will see quick large spikes in pump price.
EDIT: also, oil is a commodity traded worldwide, and downside of this is the price of oil is directed by future contracts bet on said oil. In other words, if enough people assume there will be future upticks related to raising cost of transportation insurance, they buy more futures. If they buy more of this virtual contract on price going up (called "long") then eventually real price of oil catches up. Sure, this is upside down, but markets live in this setup for many years now where tail wags the dog.
I'll bite as an independent: I believe that "they" could have reverted to Clinton(Bill) or Obama's moderate stances in regards to border/immigration and gender/identity politics and maintained a sweeping majority.
If the Democrats had disclosed Biden's decline and held a primary this likely would have sorted itself out.
As a Canadian I strongly felt it was GG to the Democrats when they didn’t run a second, competitive, knives-out primary for VP Harris.
For the second time, the party apparatus coalesced around a candidate who was ultimately trounced by someone wrongly considered unelectable.
Even if it was just theatre in the end, having a dramatic primary where the VP won would have made her look stronger and given her a chance to claw back some of the swing voters.
Or could have made her look worse because of the mud slinging between the candidates in the primary debates. You know that any criticism of a candidate by her competitors would have been trumpeted and distorted by Trump.
This is only worth arguing about because software has value. Putting this in context of a world where the cost of writing code is trending to 0, there are two obvious futures:
1. The cost continues to trend to 0, and _all_ software loses value and becomes immediately replaceable. In this world, proprietary, copyleft and permissive licenses do not matter, as I can simply have my AI reimplement whatever I want and not distribute it at all.
2. The coding cost reduction is all some temporary mirage, to be ended soon by drying VC money/rising inference costs, regulatory barriers, etc. In that world we should be reimplementing everything we can as copyleft while the inferencing is good.
There’s an other option. The cost of copying existing software trends to 0, but the cost of writing new software stays far enough above 0 that it is still relatively expensive.
There will always be cost though. Even if perfect code is getting one-shotted out, that is constantly maintained and adapted to changing conditions and technology, it simply can't stay at 0 forever because one day the power is surely going to go out!
More and more I am drawn to these kinds of ideas lately, perhaps as a kind of ethical sidestep, but still:
It's not going to solve any general issue here, but the one thing these freaks need that can't be generated by their models is energy, tons of it. So, the one thing I can do as an individual and in my (digital) community is work to be, in a word, self-sustainable. And depending on my company I guess, if I was a CEO I would hope I was wise enough to be thinking on the same lines.
Everyone is making beautiful mountains from paper and wire. I will just be happy to make a small dollhouse of stone, I think it will be worth it. How can we see not just at least some small-level of hubris otherwise?
There was a recent ruling that LLM output is inherently public domain (presumably unless it infringes some existing copyright). In which case it's not possible to use them to "reimplement everything we can as copyleft".
it's more complicated, the ruling was that AI can't be an author and the thing in question is (de-facto) public domain because it has no author in context of the "dev" claim it was fully build by AI
but AI assisted code has an author and claiming it's AI assisted even if it is fully AI build is trivial (if you don't make it public that you didn't do anything)
also some countries have laws which treat it like a tool in the sense that the one who used it is the author by default AFIK
The article is proceeding from the premise that a reimplementation is legal (but evil). To help my understanding of your comment, do you mean:
1. An LLM recreating a piece of software violates its copyright and is illegal, in which case LLM output can never be legally used because someone somewhere probably has a copyright on some portion of any software that an LLM could write.
2. You read my example as "copying a project without distributing it", vs. "having an LLM write the same functionality just for me"
There would be no GPL if anybody could have cheaply and trivially reproduced the software for printers and Lisp machines Stallman was denied access to. There is no reason to force someone to give you the source code if takes no effort to reproduce.
Mind you, that isn't what happened here. The effort involved in getting a LLM to write software comes from three things: writing a clear unambiguous spec that also gives you a clean exported API, more clean unambiguous specs for the APIs you use, and a test suite the LLM can use to verify it has implemented the exported API correctly. Dan got them all for free, from the previous implementation which I'm sure included good documentation. That means his contribution to this new code consisted of little more than pressing the button.
Sadly, if you wrote some GPL software with excellent documentation, a thorough test suite, clean API, and implemented using well understood library the cost of creating a cleanroom reproduction has indeed gone to near zero over the past 24 months. The GPL licence is irrelevant.
Welcome to the brave new world.
PS: Sqlite keeping their test suite proprietary is looking like a prescient masterstroke.
PPS: The recent ruling that an API isn't copyrightable just took on a whole new dimension.
I think this article just speaks to the immaturity of our use of AI at this "moment."
Production grade systems might be written by agents running on filesystem skills, but the production systems themselves will run on consistent and scalable data structures.
Meanwhile the UI of AI agents will almost certainly evolve away from desktop computers and toward audio/visual interfaces. An agent might get more context from a zoom call with you, once tone and body language can be used to increase the bandwidth between you.
I don't think written prompting will ever go away. Writing helps you organize your thoughts in a way that speaking, umm, ah, wait no, hang on, does not. Writing I can go back and change what I've already written before I hit send. Anybody who's prompted with speech for any length has been "wait no nevermind start over". So STT will get better, sure, it's already quite good. I just don't see text extry entirely going away because Human Intelligence (HI) just doesn't work in a way that speech would be the only interface.
Totally agree. Speech is powerful and it will always have its place. It will continue to evolve and become far more useful than it is today. But at its core, it remains a highly lossy medium compared with text, especially when it comes to expressing (and consuming expressions thereof) ideas. Even the best voice memo cannot rival a clear, well-structured email when it comes to explaining something even moderately complicated.
Voice assistants, AI pins, and whatever other speech-based interfaces they come up with next will always be "nice to have", but I don't think anybody should be throwing away their keyboards anytime soon. We may have transformed how we make computers work for us, yet the ways we interact with them are much harder to revolutionize, because they are grounded in the physical, neurological, and habitual constraints of human existence. All of which is to say, when I look at the future, I still see a lot of typing.
Saw this video recently, by an AI company working to get contextual cues from tone and body language. I think they're converting it to text and feeding it into a LLM, so not natively multimodal, but I still thought it was really cool.
The signatories of this (letter, petition, whatever) are the same folks who profit from creating this Pandora's Box. If you don't want it opened, stop making it?
Not all products will get abused, there’s better tools already (like matches/lighters/etc) or there’s just no good abusive use cases. Some products are just begging to be abused. You can’t really tit for tat with a household appliance here, these straw men aren’t of the same planet.
Then start your own company where you control the direction of the products. All these people make millions and only speak up after they are set for life.
I’m torn. On the one hand it’s nice that the rank and file take a stand against extreme overreach. On the other hand these rank and file scientists, engineers, whatever are fostering a technology which has so many at-best questionable effects on all of society.
Idealists who “genuinely”[1] want to change the world “for the better”[1] will just move on to the next Interesting Problem if it ends up making the world worse.
