Seems inconsistent to say "truth be told" before "probably". These sorts of vibes based statements cloud conversation and confuse the scientifically illiterate who are quick to attach truth to belief.
There seems to be a clear difference between criminals doing shady things and the government doing shady things. It seems like a false equivalency to compare an incident where a random guy does something terrible to one where law enforcement is rapturing people into the night while wearing masks.
What is law enforcement if not just random guys in uniform?
If the same acts are/were committed (i.e. ditch the sex trafficking example because the .gov doesn't really do that) what makes their misdeeds not equivalent to those of the non-state actor?
The difference is that we have entrusted law enforcement with a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence and so we expect them to hold themselves to a higher standard to be worthy of the enormous power they exercise on our behalf.
Perhaps, but the comment I was replying to was claiming "not wearing uniforms" which isn't what was going on. I have no idea if badges were displayed at any point, but this was a federal courthouse, one would hope that they would be asking for identification. It should also be noted that according to the article, NYPD was present at the time.
I don't think, given the facts I currently have, that claiming he didn't know they were real ICE agents is going to hold much water.
This is a silly comment, and missing content that would make it helpful. At least say why you think these things are better than C. They want a language that allows them to explore the depths of systems, so they may very well want C or similar.
Please try to be more helpful and less presumptive, especially when someone is asking to learn.
They're not trying to explore the "depths of the system". They're tired of the many layers of transformation and build steps in web dev.
Those are kind of unavoidable if you want to package your code for multiple browsers, but with the languages above, you at least only have a single build step from your code to a deployable web package, and you can get much closer to the metal (e.g. write your own server) without having to manually manage memory.
This is a kind of stoic virtue signal that may make people feel more mature for agreeing, but fails to fix issues while mocking people who try to make a difference. It's ok for people to feel things, and it's ok for people to want laws addressing anti-consumer behavior.
> This is a kind of stoic virtue signal that may make people feel more mature for agreeing, but fails to fix issues while mocking people who try to make a difference.
None of these comments are fixing issues or trying to make a difference. Sending the product back is a really good idea, especially if this change in terms means you can get a refund even if you've had it a long time.
The reason I replied to the parent comment was because of their dismissive tone. Of course returning the product is a good idea, but telling reasonable people to "chill out", and dismissing their concerns by suggesting they "just XYZ" is truly unproductive. It ends the conversation rather than engaging with it.
Still not an argument against people being allowed to be mad regarding this. You just can't give a fuck about data privacy and expect people to not oppose this and speak up.
No one can stop you being mad. No one's saying it's not allowed. It's possible someone is still young enough to misinterpret adult interactions as parental fiat, but it's not the case.
The framework that exists is crap and should be replaced with something where you as a consumer should not have to watch the eula changes like a hawk, and then the onus should not be on you as a consumer to do extra work to get refunded for a bait and switch.
This exists in the US as well. I've personally experienced and witnessed it happen within labs at an R1 University. The accountability structures are woefully insufficient to protect students and junior researchers, and the incentives are perverse as to actually reinforce the practice.
I've seen frequently that talented technical contributors are academically handicapped because they bring too much value to the lab for them to graduate quickly. I've personally had my own funding threatened if I didn't work "at least 60 hours each week" on my ex-advisors work (which was in no way related to my degree or research interests). I was fortunate to find another advisor and funding source quickly, but most advisors are absolutely profiting in their career off the backs of their students; leveraging both carrot and stick to fuel their ambition. It's a problem of modern academia and I'm not sure how to fix it.
This is actually a good insight. It turns out that transformers are indeed a form of graph network, precisely because of the attention mechanism. Graph attention networks are actually a very popular GNN architecture. Generally, the issue with using an LLM style architecture for generic graphs is modeling the sparsity, but is possible by using the graph adjacency matrix to mask the attention matrix. There are a number of papers and articles which address this connection, and plenty of research into mechanisms for sparsifying attention in transformers.
There are also graph tokenizers for using more standard transformers on graphs for doing things like classification, generation, and community detection.
Yes? And it's not so much about the surveillance in the first place as opposed to the algorithmic manipulation of content to shift narratives and spread propaganda. Whether or not one believes the US based companies do similarly is beside the point, precisely because they're US based, whereas TikTok is the product of the US's primary economic and ideological adversary
https://pytorch.org/blog/pytorch-foundation-welcomes-ray-to-...