If every website needed verification, why not simply move the verification to the device or ISP level? This seems like an authoritative move to track users across websites, and another good reason to keep using a VPN.
Certainly a terrifying amount of responsibility and upkeep for each individual website. If the UK wishes to establish this and not want it to lead to an insane amount of privacy leaks, it should consider developing a technology that makes it work in a privacy-respecting way, like the European Age Verification Solution [0]'s Zero-Knowledge Proofs.
> the UK wishes to establish this and not want it to lead to an insane amount of privacy leaks, it should consider developing a technology that makes it work in a privacy-respecting way
They don’t care about the privacy aspect.
A key part of effective age verification is associating an identity with the account. They don’t just want to confirm that the person accessing the site has access to an ID of anyone who is 16+, they want to make an effort to associate the ID with the account. It’s the same reason why when you present an ID to buy alcohol they look at the photo to make sure the ID is actually yours, not just that you have an ID of someone older in your possession.
Even if we keep it at the website level, a government-run solution that allows you to verify your age without revealing your identity would be the logical solution. There is no good reason why they need to know who I am to know how old I am. The EU seems to be headed that way. The UK doesn't seem to care, almost as if associating real names with accounts was the whole point and saving children was just a convenient excuse for them
I prefer to default to `develop` and then eventually branch out to `release`: that way my branch names are pretty explicit. It seemed silly to me to start with a "central" branch, no matter the wording, because that's not actually how Git works (and it's rather uninformative).
For... some in the comment section, please recall the HN guideline: "Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive."
I remember when default branch was simply `trunk`, but maybe that was in SVN not git… trunk goes well with branches, maybe git should stick (heh) to it
Which for some of us, Spanish speakers, was on occasion amusing or lewd, depending on the context and culture. The Spanish equivalent is 'tronco' which is very similar and it is slang for a couple of things.
"Good deed math" feels like it drives legitimacy from some intrinsic sense of 'goodness', which to my ken looks de-emphasised in Franklin's model. Each act is a deed unto itself: a good deed and a bad deed do not counteract or excuse one another in some cosmic calculus.
The only link is the person -- that their acts inform their thoughts and habits, which informs future acts. In this case "good deed math" is likely a post-hoc rationalisation, predicted by the Franklin model but not exactly encouraged.
I found this article while making my way about Wikipedia (as you do).
It's ice that burns: cages of water trapping methane, and indeed the largest non-atmospheric store of it on earth. It forms interesting fractals under a microscope, has subtle and historical climate effects, fosters methanotroph communities. It has commercial interest for methane extraction and may work well for static methane storage.
I took a brief gander at its code [0] and saw it mainly focusses on k-means clustering algorithms (in JS, no less). To my ken this is likely for suggesting new tabs, something a user is even less likely to use than renaming them.
Its constant drain even when not 'in use' seems to imply it's classifying tabs as they change page (though it might be telemetry or uncommented testing). If so, it's an example of premature optimisation gone very wrong.
It's a shame, because it overshadows the fact that naming tab groups is a perfect use case for an LLM, alongside keyboard suggestions and reverse dictionaries [1]. I'm ardently distrustful of LLMs for many, many purposes, but for the tiny parameter and token usage needed it's hard to not like. Which is a shame it's (somehow) such a drain.
Does anyone here struggle so much with naming a group of tabs that you'd reach for an LLM? I mean... really? How often does a group of tabs need a more complex name than "Work", "Gaming", etc? Maybe a suffix for the work project?
i think the implementation is more that when you connect two or more tabs, it automatically names it for you, meaning you don't have to rename it (at least, that's my experience with the feature in Edge)
I recall an extension (I think by a Mozilla dev) which could do automatic grouping of tabs (back before tab groups was removed). I'm surprised this hasn't come back.
Having just taken an IQ test out of curiosity, they strike me as testing very little beyond the ability to pattern recognise and extrapolate.
Having pattern recognised and extrapolated to my perception of the wealth-happiness curve, it seems that when your wants are met by your current wage, wanting more money is paradoxical -- it requires either time or stress that take away from the many other richnesses of life.
A little ambition (and savings) is good -- you can't recline too far back into the comfort zone -- but wealth never struck me as a particularly important measure of a person.
Could you please expand on that ? I haven't found any sources, the only thing that pops up is a bullshit claim by Jordan peterson, that has been debunked as, at best, an oversimplification.
There is nothing more for me to expand on. If you want to do the research some of the starting sources are below.
Peterson has spoken alot on IQ and made several claims about IQ, you'll need to be specific about which claim you mean. Discarding everything the man says is just throwing the baby out with the bathwater, a fallacy/flawed logic.
I don't know about "83" (the number I always see is 100), but: IQ tests are less discriminating at the high end, and test-retest reliability drops at the high end (the "high end" of an IQ test might just be testing grit or fatigue). I think it's widely understood that IQ is unreliably ordinal as scores increase.
You definitely don't need to dip into the Peterson Cinematic Universe to look this up!
> he’s a VTuber, a fully virtual personality powered by artificial intelligence.
I have only a _passing_ familiarity with VTubers (my friend is one) and this is obviously and patently wrong. A VTuber is a YouTuber with a virtual avatar; no more, no less.
The article goes onto correct itself, but it’s a bit disheartening to see obvious misuse of terms in the first sentence…
An amendment proposed by congress [0] very specifically disallows a third term if the first two were consecutive. It's all been very cynical in that way.
Speaking as someone not from the country, US federal politics has became alarmingly... gerontocratic. Which means the younger generations get fewer chances to grow political acumen and expertise (unless, of course, they have backing). Which only hurts the rest of the country in the long term.
LLMs by their nature are good at word or concept association. Cohesiveness in length is where they begin to break down.
I tend to liken them to very drunken scholars. They know things, usually at about a Wikipedia level, and they’re cheery too. But they lack a capacity to doubt themselves; they often are confidently wrong.
Often the greatest help is understanding natural language, but given its hiccups… time using it is probably best spent using it as a drunken librarian – to teach how to phrase and fetch information
As one telling recent example, I tried using an LLM to help with some jq (with which I’m rusty); it got a few basics and then repetitively tripped over a syntax hiccup on loop, “correcting” itself to the same answer each time. A StackOverflow search or two, for comparison, answered my questions and taught some new syntax too. Probably took less time, but more critical thought.
That, coupled with the fact LLMs tend to give an answer and then also an unnecessary verbose step-by-step, means I tend to dislike them.
I also have a huge bugbear about “AI” as a term because it tells you very little.
Plenty of applied statistics (markov chains, clustering algos, deep learning eg computer vidion; even SearchRank) are used heavily in research and other cases to do a lot of good. Even for the layman: the Seek app by iNaturalist is awesome for identifying common plant species; Stockfish is (now) a NN that dominates in chess.
But these are classifiers, not generators. By their very nature it is just statistics to evaluate a classifier on a test dataset. Generators, however, are far, far thornier to test, and seem a lot more prone to overfitting.
While I’m not familiar with a typical trained generator tensor, I imagine the optimal one will be surprisingly sparse, though not in a structured way - corresponding to a more clustered “small world” network, which IRL seem the most productive.
Certainly a terrifying amount of responsibility and upkeep for each individual website. If the UK wishes to establish this and not want it to lead to an insane amount of privacy leaks, it should consider developing a technology that makes it work in a privacy-respecting way, like the European Age Verification Solution [0]'s Zero-Knowledge Proofs.
[0] https://ageverification.dev