Not really, the politicians with a Trumpian style (Johnson and Truss) came after brexit and got there because of the polarisation caused by brexit (and had the example of Trump himself). There was definitely a lot of lying and false claims that were used by the leave campaign in order to get brexit and it shared some similarities with Trump, but it wasnt politics in the the style of being completely divorced from reality and overwhelming incompetance that defines Trump.

10% to 80% seems like too wide a range for your range of “how many are on the largest instance” 10% means only 1 in ten users are on the largest instance and 9/10 are spread out on the rest, If anything that seems overly fragmented. On the other end 80% means 4/5 users are on the largest instance and 1/5 are shared between all other instances which is incredibly concentrated.

I’d sugest narrowing the range to 20% to 66%, 1 in 5 on the largest instance is still plenty dispersed to ensure that there is competition/variety and 2 in 3 users on the largest instance is already well into monopoly territory.

As per the article:

It uses high frequency radio waves to disrupt or damage critical electronic components inside drones, causing them to crash or malfunction.

Its not jamming the comms, its inducing currents inside the electronics of the drone to fry them.

Even if it were true (which I’m pretty sure it isnt) so what? The whole benefit of free software is people can fork it and make their own version if they dont like where it is headded.

Empty sequences being false goes back a lot further than perl, it was already a thing in the first lisp (in fact the empty list was the cannonical false).

We also didnt understand how the internet would change the world, still went ahead with it. We didnt understand how computers would change the world, still went ahead with it, we didnt understand how the steam engine would change the world… etc etc.

No one can know how a new invention will change things, but you are not going to be able to crush human’s innate creativity and drive to try new things. Sometimes those things are going to be a net negative and that’s bad, but the alternative is to insist nothing new is tried and thats A bad and B not possible.

People being economically displaced from innovation increasing productivity is good provided it happens at a reasonable pace and there is a sufficient social safety net to get those people back on their feet. Unfortunately those safety nets dont exist everywhere and have been under attack (in the west) for the past 40 years.

I don’t think that’s really a fair comparison, babies exist with images and sounds for over a year before they begin to learn language, so it would make sense that they begin to understand the world in non-linguistic terms and then apply language to that. LLMs only exist in relation to language so couldnt understand a concept separately to language, it would be like asking a person to conceptualise radio waves prior to having heard about them.

Probably, given that LLMs only exist in the domain of language, still interesting that they seem to have a “conceptual” systems that is commonly shared between languages.

Compared to a human who forms an abstract thought and then translates that thought into words. Which words I use has little to do with which other words I’ve used except to make sure I’m following the rules of grammar.

Interesting that…

Anthropic also found, among other things, that Claude “sometimes thinks in a conceptual space that is shared between languages, suggesting it has a kind of universal ‘language of thought’.”

Translations apps would be the main one for LLM tech, LLMs largely came out of google’s research into machine translation.

I think it’s refering to that they were only using a single camera and that the episodes were performed all the way though (up to 16 times per that article) on location without stopping. With those constraints there isnt really a way to make cuts.

No you’re not going crazy, you just understand economics and trade more than the President of the USA.

I wouldnt trust the words of a Palantir exec if they said the sky was blue, but even accepting what they say, its just that the hamas attacks gave the ban impetus to move forwards. By his own words the ban already had bipartesan support and executive approval before that.

The headline that it was “about” Isreal rather than China is a massive reach.

Have they? Where?

He could be lying, but the cinematographer for it says each episode was a single shot

“There’s no stitching of takes together," cinematographer Matthew Lewis told Variety. “It was one entire shot, whether I wanted it to be or not.”

I dont see why he’d say that if it wasnt as he’d look pretty stupid if some else came out and contradicted him.

Its a very difficult subject, both sides have merit. I can see the “CSAM created without abuse could be used in treatment/management of people with these horrible urges” but I can also see “Allowing people to create CSAM could normalise it and lead to more actual abuse”.

Sadly its incredibly difficult for academics to study this subject and see which of those two is more prevalent.

Similar but not quite as bad, Watson and Crick who did the analysis that figured out the structure got the Nobel, but Rosalind Franklin who did the xray diffraction that got them the data that allowed them to figure out the double helix structure got left out.

Still pretty bad, but not as bad as giving the prize to someone who did no work for it and actively argued against Bell’s conclusions.

So where does it end? Slugs, mites, krill, bacteria, viruses? How do you draw a line that says free will this side of the line, just mechanics and random chance this side of the line?

I just dont find it a particularly useful concept.

Ok, but then you run into why does billions of vairables create free will in a human but not a computer? Does it create free will in a pig? A slug? A bacterium?