Is it just me, or is this outrage super amusing given the fact that for a long time you could search through you Google Photos (on Android, iOS or web) for e.g. “baby” and get a bunch of hits?
Not sure that’s always a good thing - see the occasionally erratic behavior of Tesla’s autopilot. It directly speaks the language of the systems it connects with, and also occasionally steers into dividers, killing people - and nobody knows why. We need to be able to verify correctness of what the models generate.
Not sure about Bedrock, but I used Q to write some Python code, and I have to say - it was pretty good. Even ended up covering an edge case I didn't think of. In the end it was all pretty basic (walking a directory tree and compiling some analytics on content) - but it saved me time and I never felt frustrated with it. My anecdotal $0.02
That's a bold assertion - do you have any evidence to support this? I find that they do plenty of great journalism, often bringing stories that don't make it into the english-language media via other outlets. For example, just from today an article on the fight for Iraqi waterway restoration:
https://www.aljazeera.com/features/longform/2024/5/4/dont-be...
In general, the Features page (https://www.aljazeera.com/features/) doesn't exactly smack of Islamic propaganda - so curious to see how you came to this conclusion.
Well, Al Jazeera English is separate and a bit better than regular Al Jazeera. But look at their stories and the morals they try to show in there. It’s always garnering more support for Islamic causes. They infiltrated several Israeli and Jewish groups, and are funded by the Qatari government.
These governments are not okay. State sponsored tv from countries like Iran, Qatar, Russia are not okay. Not even when they report accurately, because of the bias in what and how they report.
Not saying western media like Fox News is any better, but yeah.
And that they ‘appear’ okay is precisely the biggest problem. If they are so fair; how many reports are pro Israe, or condemn Hamas’s actions? Is it zero? ;)
It’s dangerous because not being able to track widespread ownership of major in-country assets by a geopolitical adversary puts one at a disadvantage; it’s dangerous because it makes it much more difficult to ascertain that the proceeds of criminality are not being used in purchase of those assets - just to name a couple of the reasons.
So why are foreign nationals that are not permanent residents or citizens allowed to own property? At the very least they should have to register their land property purchases with some department. The problem here isn't actually the money used, it's the fact that the US does not genuinely care if foreign agents own property inside the US.
I also don't see anything supporting this interpretation in the actual regulation - quite to the contrary. It repeatedly refers to all batteries, and says nothing of any class of devices that are exempt.
> new regulatory framework for batteries will consider rules on recycled content and
measures to improve the collection and recycling rates of all batteries
> It is necessary to create a harmonised regulatory framework for
dealing with the entire life cycle of batteries that are placed on the market in the Union.
> It is also necessary to update Union law on the management of waste batteries and to take
measures to protect the environment and human health by preventing or reducing the
adverse impacts of the generation and management of waste,
"Products placed on the market [...] in applications that the end-user is not intended to split up or open [...] should be subject to requirements applicable to batteries."
This sounds to me like as long as they have a recycling program for cellphones, the entire phone can be considered the "battery" and no user replaceablilty is necessary.
>Products placed on the market as battery packs, which are batteries or groups of cells that
are connected or encapsulated within an outer casing to form a complete unit ready for use
by end-users or in applications that the end-user is not intended to split up or open and
which conform to the definition of batteries, or battery cells that conform to the definition
of batteries, should be subject to requirements applicable to batteries.
I don't think phones can be considered being placed on the market as battery packs
Now just spinning a bit of yarn here, but this seems like a shrewd piece of political opportunism by Prigozhin.
The reality is that since he was denied additional access to Russian prisoners to use as cannon fodder, Wagner has had to commit its more experienced troops into the Bakhmut meat grinder. My money is that in his calculations, the cost of victory there would be a dramatically diminished war-fighting ability of the PMC. Not only that but it might make Russian military leadership look less terrible - definitely not something he wants. However, with a retreat, he can preserve Wagner’s fighting capacity, while skewering the Russian military leadership, with whom he has been very publicly feuding. My $0.02
I work at a company where we process vast amounts of retailer advertising data, and one of the things we need to do is tag images and extract data from deals. Although humans are still involved in this, at this point they are mostly checking the work of our ML models. This dramatically increases the speed with which we are able to do this - and this speed is one of the things that makes us attractive to our clients.
Though, I wouldn't be surprised that if overall, people have spent more time on compute than have made from the models. There are companies that treat data science properly and are doing it well - but in the previous financial era people were inclined to throw money at things without clear criteria for success.
Maybe I am a confused luddite, but it seems telling that this argument immediately launches into the solution space of a problem that is itself created by the presence of a blockchain.
Double-spend has been solved by the financial sector quite some time ago. The distributed system part - I guess this is the problem that I think the article is claiming is yet to be found.
Double spend was solved by the use of cash money, not the financial sector.
If I give you a coin (or paper money), then by definition I don't have it any more. I can't spend it twice.
Accounting with transactions netting to zero ("double entry") solved the problem of recording transactions in an immutable way on a ledger, assuming you control the ledger.
Clearing houses solved the problem of interparty risk when settling (by using an intermediary that controls the ledger of transactions between parties).
Title registries solved the problem of "ownership" by creating the concept of a "title" (ie a government backed identification of property that is recognized by law that the bearer "owns"). Title registries (like "Torrens titles" invented in Australia) solve the bearer problem by having a central ledger of title holding.
Blockchain can "solve" the ledger parts of these elements. But the ledger being immutable doesn't solve the problem of recognition of title (see NFTs). By adding the machinations of "mining" and "proof of stake/work", blockchains can be extended to include the "title" as part of the ledger itself. The mining transaction effectively creates something that is initially owned by the miner.
Ethereum adds to the "intelligence" of the transactions stored on the ledger, adding elements of computation to each one.
All the rest of it, all the invented coins etc, the "exchanges", etc etc ad infinitum are attempts to map these ledgers back to fiat currencies so that "actual" money can be made.
I think the confusion is the parent is talking about an implementation detail (blockchain), rather than the main problem cryptocurrency actually solves. Cryptocurrency solves for internet based financial sovereignty. Whether or not you think that's important to the world is a different discussion.
> Double-spend has been solved by the financial sector.
Traditional finance offers “at-most-one spend”while blockchain protocols offer “one spend up to 1/3 malicious nodes”.
The limit on the former is government, and Byzantine Fault Tolerance sets the limit on the latter.
Government can unilaterally seize “your” funds in traditional banking, while a substantial computational attack is required to cause a loss of confidence event (double spend) on a particular blockchain.
If you are in a position where losing access to a significant amount of money due to the actions of the state are likely, would it not make sense to have a backup plan?
