Good point! I've already expanded the area from something much smaller (so to go to the National Stadium and so on).
The first draft is easy, since Opus 5.5 is good at working with open data and checking against it.
What takes much more time is polishing. Sometimes things are jagged or wrong, streets are disconnected, some tree crowns float in the air, and bridges look like they’ve been hit by an airstrike.
I check things manually, compare them with photos, etc.
Unfortunately, that's not how modern crypto works. Many mathematical problems on which algorithm rests their security are not proven to be unsolvable, but instead they're believed to be hard to solve. So here are the questions, who believes what is hard, and hard for whom.
Somehow I wouldn't trust my data on mathematical problems, for which the recommendation is that they would challenge Kayne West.
It could also be 302. You cannot just invent a massive user base because you have no information. Given how niche the software is there is no reasons to believe it is widely used in places where that would cause issues. I suspect not a single person has been impacted by seeing Ukrainian flags.
The push back in this is obviously coming from an anti Ukraine sentiment
I do agree that the user base is possibly minuscule. But as I said in other comments, even if it only happened to one single person, I wouldn't consider it an acceptable risk.
We've removed stuff from debian for way less than this.
> The push back in this is obviously coming from an anti Ukraine sentiment
Will they hire the actual maintainers of the software in question, to have time dedicated to the project, or will they as usual, dump AI-generated patches unto maintainers, but this time with even more time pressure to merge, lest them consider projects “unmaintained” if they don't push a fix in 3 femtoseconds, and use it as a rationale to take over the project?
Oh, this gave me an idea. OP should be able to get a hold of this „report” by subject access request. Law enforcement exception to GDPR doesn't apply to private companies.
10-20× more in private sector for senior leadership/advisory role sounds reasonable, but still, I wonder if some part of that compensation stems from the fact that the person is availing him/herself as an asset of influence, i.e. can be used to push narrative through media while posing as independent, credible expert. Needs further research and/or A/B testing I guess.
Well yeah when you hire at a senior level it goes unsaid that you're partially hiring for that persons influence. The labour value alone would not reflect such a high price.
reply