They do. You can just break the law. Especially when it's a civil regulation like using recyclable packaging material, you will not go to jail for that.
You responded to an abbreviation of the original argument. The original was "people had one year to prepare for or protest this". And the impact of a required equipment replacement is dependent on the expected lifetime of the equipment. Practically all equipment lasts more than a year. Disposable items bought in bulk are basically a form of equipment that lasts until you run out. Five years will see about a third of stuff get turned over. I have seen some fluoroscopy equipment still running since the late 90s.
Ultimately "make better rules" is only half the battle. You still need a process for implementation.
The stupid rules were imposed by member countries, and not by the EU. There are several countries, like Italy, Hungary who were not imposed that stupid rules, because EU didn't force anybody to have this level of stupidity in these rules. There is a reason why the article mentions only Germany, Austria, et al, they are the idiots, and not everybody or the EU... Also, nobody forced these countries to have incompatible systems. They chose this.
So no, it's not EU's ruling, but their idiot member states. As usual. And of course, everybody points to the usual scapegoat, regardless of the truth. And probably the truth is, that those specific member states wanted this mess.
The EU is the product of the decisions of its members and structure of the coalition. Outsiders have little reason to distinguish the nuance when the discussion has to do with the EU market as a whole.
I'm in EU. But playing the blame game is not getting us anywhere. If you look at this legislation with the most favorable eyes, it still stopped short of making sure it's applicable, and refused to postpone its application as recently as a couple of months ago when it was already clear it'll be a shitshow. That's at EU level, not member countries.
And if you take off the rose tinted glasses, it's the same... um... what's the word? retardedness. when it comes to the environment. In order to... do what exactly? count carboard boxes better? they created yet another bureaucracy.
This is exactly what I meant by not giving a shit about other people's money (or time=money, in some instances).
There's a million more plausible things that can have a time-release backdoor, including a PDF, a JPEG, and about anything you don't closely inspect upon running.
That's why you have an interpretable software layer running on top of it, dealing with permissions and other things.
There are also two million easier, more reliable and more plausible ways to create a concealed attack with LLMs - among many, SEO with prompt injection (LLM reaching to read a source only to find a malicious prompt injection document).
Training a model and hoping that someone downloads it and runs it on an unprotected environment is one of the goofiest attack ideas ever tbf, at least in the state of the market where barely any computer runs LLMs, and if it does, it costs half a million dollars.
You've selectively quoted the article. The full quote (emphasis added):
"When Moore’s Law slowed in the mid-2000s (specifically, single-threaded performance stagnated), we suddenly had to think about parallelization, architecture, memory locality, etc."
Your link is talking about transistor count. The article is talking about single-threaded performance. Today's CPUs are faster in large part because they have more and more cores.
TLDR: the experiment asks for in-distribution responses and gets those.
The right answer here is to ask a LLM to create a scene similar in quality to those, but completely out of distribution.
I asked GPT 5.6 Sol to give me a pelican playing football on San Siro while smoking a cigarette, in AC Milan's t-shirt. While this sounds like higher complexity of a problem, the generations from current models often include additional details like scene composition, scarf, etc., I don't ask for, so I wanted to see what here is memorization vs. composition skill.
"write svg code of a fish playing football on san siro in ac milan's t shirt, with raybans on and a cigarette."
Try that on GPT 5.6 Sol, Fable, or whatever other model. It's chaos.
The real performance is nowhere close to what is presented in the marketing materials, which is pretty annoying. Especially text rendering and accuracy.
Try asking it for a plot of Polish GDP growth over the past 20 years. It's slop.
This model isn't supposed to contain all the numerical data. It will give you a (usually) matching graph transformed from one you provide or from a table of information you provide. Or you can pipeline from an LLM doing research on that data first. But expecting an image gen model to get you GDP info has got to be one of the worst possible approaches.
> Especially text rendering
That's true though. I still got some completely fried letters in headings.
It included the table verbatim and even managed to hallucinate a reasonable heading for it, but then the graph doesn't even manage to align the data points with the time axis, leading to an unfortunate collision in the middle.
I guess you should use a traditional graphing library for your presentation slides for now.
I am not expecting it, it's the Qwen team is claimingthey can do much harder tasks than this, like rendering a consistent page of a maths paper, or creating true to fact explainers.
A lot (all?) VCs charge some form of fees (typically capped at 20% of the entire fund, split in various percentages through 4 years investing, 4 divesting period). These fees often are only paid out only based on the actively deployed capital, and are not the only incentive: the main incentive is shares in gains (carry).
The reason they're based on actively deployed capital isn't that the LPs (people who give VCs money to invest) want them to deploy the money in a stupid way, but they definitely don't want VCs to get the fees if the money wasn't invested. Therefore, VCs:
1. Want to raise as much money as possible
2. Want to deploy as much money as possible
Ideally, as quickly as possible.
There's nothing fraudulent about the idea of calculating VCs fees in various scenarios.
There's however the extremely dodgy part of the portfolio companies paying their investor (VC) fees for anything. This is an obvious conflict of interests, and should never happen, but I personally know of multiple VC funds here in Europe (will skip the names to not get sued, lol) who base their entire operational model on funding shitty companies that have 0 chance of success, charging them for the office space and often "shared services" they provide. Unsure if this is a regulatory overlooking, or something that's deliberately legal, but IMHO shouldn't be. Probably they talked their LPs into agreeing to this on paper.
Other EV:s have service inspections as part of the warranty requirements. That means they get inspected by workshops, which means that problems are more likely to be first found during the government inspection.
I don't think the actual quality difference under Equal conditions is a large as the TUV report suggests.
Deel is one of the reasons why my policy for working for foreign companies is "B2B or I'm fucking off". Everyone I know (employees/contractors using it, not the other side) who went for it hated and regretted it.
Singling out Deel because you brought it up (and I ragequit after reading their "deel" and consulting it with a local lawyer), but I have the exact same story for every employer of record I've been involved with here in EU, and I don't know a single person who's been happy with them either (again, all employees/contractors).
I understand that it's comfortable and convenient for the employer (presumably, or at least the perspective of outsourcing this and reducing liability outweighs everything else), but these companies absolutely do not know what they're doing wrt local laws.
How certain are you of this? I only have anecdata, but when I tried to use a 3rd party agency to hire someone in France, from Ireland I got the process through several layers of management, up to and including the CEO and COO of my American employer, and HR, and legal counsel, only to be warned away in the most emphatic terms by external counsel. They told us of the risk of large fines and jail time in France for executives of companies doing this.
We have at least recently accepted the Fingleton report's findings (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nuclear-regulator...) which is an attempt to get rid of a bunch of administrative blockers. I'm not aware of any new reactors being announced?
The price of electricity in the UK is going up right now to start paying for the next nuclear plant 10 years (fingers crossed) in advance of it generating any electicity.
They literally invented the idea of applying Contracts for Difference from finance to help build nuclear in the UK.
Those have massively helped renewables get built in the UK and elsewhere by letting governments cheaply subsidize financial risk in energy investments while allowing competitive developers to bid the price lower.
But it wasn't enough for nuclear, where the builders didn't want to be on the hook for the inevitable doubling (or worse) of final cost, so they wrote special rules for new nuclear to be paid in advance and not held to cost estimates.
> where the builders didn't want to be on the hook for the inevitable doubling (or worse) of final cost, so they wrote special rules for new nuclear to be paid in advance and not held to cost estimates.
Sounds relatively fair to me - since the vast majority of delays and cost is government initiated (or enabled: e.g. giving power to NIMBY groups). Ideally there are carve-outs for any delays or cost overruns solely the fault of the builders and operators. Projects like these always will have a certain amount of incompetence and graft to them, unfortunately.
Maybe once/if the nuclear industry can get un-destroyed by the government that destroyed it in the first place, these subsidies can go away. If subsidies are good for green energy, they are good for kickstarting the nuclear energy segment again. If countries can successfully hold the line and stick to a 20 year program of increasing the pace and velocity of building new plants a robust industry just might emerge.
"Pozsar’s argument: the moment Western nations froze Russian foreign exchange reserves, the assumed risk-free nature of these dollar holdings changed fundamentally. What had been viewed as having negligible credit risk suddenly carried confiscation risk."
This has nothing to do with dollar. Almost all of the confiscated currency was in Europe, and it has to do with invading your bank's ally. No country in the world ever assumed that's risk free, it wasn't being priced back then and isn't now, because nobody except from Russia is stupid enough to do that.
Importantly, Russia fully expected to have access to those dollars during a war with the west, as that was the entire reason of stockpiling them in the first place, but Russia's central bank was not informed ahead of time that they were invading Ukraine and was completely unable to move the money before the west reacted.
The risk was known and expected. The risk that (hilariously) wasn't planned for was the risk that Putin is that fucking stupid.
Good point about Europe holding most of the frozen assets (~$300B vs ~$5B in the US). But that actually reinforces rather than contradicts Pozsar's framework; it's not specifically about the dollar versus other currencies, but about Western-controlled financial claims generally (whether USD, EUR, or other G7 assets) versus 'outside money' that can't be frozen by institutional decision.
The key insight imp isn't 'dollars are risky,' it's 'any financial claim on a Western institution now carries confiscation risk if your geopolitical interests diverge.' Whether those claims are denominated in dollars or euros doesn't change the fundamental calculus for reserve holders. That's why we're seeing (and might see more) diversification toward gold and commodities—assets with less/different counterparty risk rather than just EUR-for-USD swaps.
There have been numerous cases of sanctioning and wealth confisactions (Afrghanistan, Venezuela, Iraq, Iran, Libya), and "_now_ carries confiscation risk" is just factually incorrect. It has always carried such risk, this risk has materialized numerous times, and most importantly, no diversification is happening - literally nothing changed: https://data.imf.org/en/news/4225global%20fx%20reserves%20de...
By the way, good luck with trusting China, Russia, or other places to store wealth more than Europe. It's total ignorance to believe there's somewhere safer to store your money than the West.
