They're increasingly turning to contracts with Comcast and AT+T so that even if you don't have them on the network, they can phone home on the neighbor's wifi.
That's because they understand how creepy it is. But you can find plenty of pieces about what great things it's doing for local municipalities, who have comparably small budgets, and read between the lines.
Lobbying groups are two-faced all of the time. Not just "some of the time that is a lot", but all of the time. Lobbying groups basically never do in private what they say they do in public, and it is more common than any other type of lobbying group that a lobbying group is working directly against its front-page public relations and name.
For a recent local to me example, an organization called "Lake Washington Working Families"[1] lobbies against bringing in a new food wholesaler in a food desert. Every word in the name is a lie; they are not based in lake Washington, or even Washington at all. They do not represent families and especially not working families. They represent a specific, powerful Union; I do not begrudge them representing the interests of their union members, but I do begrudge the outright lies that they are using to do so.
>Lobbying groups are two-faced all of the time. Not just "some of the time that is a lot", but all of the time. Lobbying groups basically never do in private what they say they do in public, and it is more common than any other type of lobbying group that a lobbying group is working directly against its front-page public relations and name.
Seems like a hasty generalization. The NRA, workers unions, oil companies, crypto all openly advocate for exactly what their supporters want. One Seattle astroturf group doesn't really get me convinced of "all of the time".
It would be a stronger argument if you directly spoke on the topic of Freedom House, instead of veering to a random psyop.
Can you give examples of Freedom House acting "Two-faced"? As JuniperMesos quoted from Wikipedia, they were founded in 1941, so it shouldn't be hard for you to find a precise example over their ~85 years of operation that backs up your claim.
What could they possibly be doing to advocate against freedom in secret? My impression is that most of their time is spent on their ratings and news articles.
They are accused of being "Right center"[1] by MBFC, while Heritage foundation accuses[2] them of being partisan left. Seems to me that they are focused on their goals, freedom, while upsetting those that oppose it, regardless of politics.
As we have seen throughout history and recently[3], authoritarianism is not attached to one side of the political spectrum, which makes me think they are more reputable.
I am a Site Reliability Engineer (SRE), Google Style, with experience at both large and small organizations. I can help you build a Platform Engineering practice from the very beginning. I'm looking to help small dev teams increase their velocity by implementing best-practices of Devops: CI/CD, Kubernetes Deployments, and effective Monitoring frameworks.
I'm particularly selling my skills in PKI/TLS. My clients are rapidly moving to MTLS for all service-to-service authentication and even for browser-to-service authentication for internal tools.
I am a Site Reliability Engineer (SRE), Google Style, with experience at both large and small organizations. I can help you build a Platform Engineering practice from the very beginning. I'm looking to help small dev teams increase their velocity by implementing best-practices of Devops: CI/CD, Kubernetes Deployments, and effective Monitoring frameworks.
I'm particularly selling my skills in PKI/TLS. My clients are rapidly moving to MTLS for all service-to-service authentication and even for browser-to-service authentication for internal tools.
Because the true name of the feature is VisualSourceSafe actions. It's all over the code of the runner if you take a second to look, and the runner, like the rest of the feature, is of typical early 2000s Microsoft quality, which is to say, none at all.
The LLM presents a perverse incentive here - It is used for perceived efficiency gains, most of which would be consumed by the act of rewriting and redrafting. The alienness of the thoughts in the document is also non-condusive to this; Reading a long document about something you think you know but did not write is exhausting and mentally painful - This is why code review has such relatively poor results.
Quite frankly, while having an LLM draft and rewriting it would be okay, I do not believe it is reasonable to expect that to ever happen. It will be either like high school paper plagarism (Just change around some of the sentences and rephrase it bro), or it will simply not even get that much. It is unreasonable with what we know about human psychology to expect that "Human-Rewrites of LLM drafts", at the level that the human contributes something, are maintainable and scalable; Most people psychologically can't put in that effort.
>The LLM presents a perverse incentive here - It is used for perceived efficiency gains, most of which would be consumed by the act of rewriting and redrafting.
It might give efficiency gains for the writer, but the reader has to read the slop and try to guess at what it was intending to communicate and weed out "hallucinations". That's a big loss of efficiency for the reader.
I just can't seem to square up that the same people that complained left-and-right about "code smells" are the same ones that are shitting out slop code and are proud they shipped 50k lines of code in a week. It's going to be a maintenance nightmare for someone else. I'm not sure how anyone coming in is going to learn a codebase written by LLMs when it's 10x more code than is reasonably needed to solve the problem.
I really like this approach. I worked on this problem (create a nice background for an image) for a couple weeks many years ago while organizing my desktop wallpaper collection, and never came up with a good answer. Unfortunately, I think that it's been "solved" in the tiktok era; an enlarged and blurred version of the image is used to fill the background space.
The blurred mirror is inoffensive to almost everyone, and yet it always strikes me as gauche. Easy to ignore and yet I feel that it adds a lot of useless visual noise.
The problem with being unfree and alive, is one day you suddenly aren't, and you know exactly why and yet still have no idea of the specifics.
The general trend of more freedom==greater lifespan and more healthy children is very clear, but muddying the waters is a favorite tactic of those who'd exploit the lack of freedom for their own benefit.
Who cares if it works in places that won't play nice? They're digging their own grave if they don't publish, and only hurting themselves. The nice thing about massively distributed systems is that they can be as reliable as the people who depend on them need them to be, with the relevant authorities having the option to be as real or as clowny as they want to be.
That said, I would never respect the DNS TTL of such a scheme, for my own use cases. I'd query each of them once an hour, latch the last response forever, and delay propagation of a new response for a full week that it stayed stable before serving the new record.
> Who cares if it works in places that won't play nice? They're digging their own grave if they don't publish, and only hurting themselves.
The timezone database was not created for the benefit of governments, it was created for the benefit of users and vendors.
People who have to live their lives under corrupt/incompetent governments have enough problems on their plate already, without the added indignity of making it harder for them to get their computers to show the correct local time.
Who maintains what time it was in Yugoslavia in 1970? Or Serbia? What country maintains the time information for the island of Taiwan? Or Hong Kong while under British rule or while under Japanese rule?
It might be possible to use that for the information of now - to answer the question of "what is local time for me based on UTC?" or "what is local time for someone else now?" ... but what about the information of yesterday? When it was 12:01 PM in Chicago in 1948, what time was it in Hong Kong?
reply