The ruling makes sense as it is based on an assumption that can’t be demonstrated. But hopefully some big, high profile website gets sufficiently fucked or pissed off by the law that it blocks the UK/gets blocked by the UK.
Unfortunately the server I use as a VPN is in France which also has some insane rules.
So… you can bag while the cashier scans, right? Splitting the work, making it quicker.
I have maybe once checked out at an in-person check-out where the person scanning was twice as slow as me on my own at a self-service checkout.
Normally at an in-person checkout, I am in fact the bottleneck placing stuff in bags. I’m already motivated to do that as quickly as possible, and the person scanning is still faster than that. Are you like the other person and just standing around while the cashier bags your groceries? If you “really care about leaving” you could do something about that.
OK, so the reason is because in the situation with two people, you fail to make use of both to make it go faster, and instead just stand around.
So if speed were the priority, I have a suggestion for you.
This doesn’t belong in this community, does it?
Guess Trump is OK with China being the dominant scientific force in the world though.
You can tell this is marketing fluff, because GPT could already provide “PhD-level expertise” - just in a hit-and-miss fashion that you couldn’t rely upon without some other form of verification. So how is this different?
How can you be faster when you have to both scan and bag everything, whereas at the human checkout you only have to bag?
The regulations impose additional requirements for a reason - because political advertising can be extremely dangerous. If it’s a question of no political advertising or opaque, microtargeted political advertising that can’t be investigated later, then it’s an easy choice.
I didn’t say it’s something you need. Read the rest of my comment.
If you just see this and, like 20 others, blindly say “you should trust your partner” then you haven’t thought about it at all. If you trust your partner completely, then you trust them to use your location information responsibly, right? So trust does not have any bearing on whether to use it or not.
The issue for me is that we should try to avoid normalising behaviour which enables coercive control in relationships, even if it is practical. That means that even if you trust your partner not to spy on your every move and use the information against you, you shouldn’t enable it because it makes it harder for everyone who can’t trust their partner to that extent to justify not using it.
On a more practical level, controlling behaviour doesn’t always manifest straight away. What’s safe now may not be safe in two years, and if it does start ramping up later, it may be much, much harder to back out of agreements made today which end up impacting your safety.
If your encryption is not a layer on top of a messaging service, you have to trust that the service you’re using is actually end-to-end encrypted. I point this out because it means that encryption is not a protection against he service not doing what it says it does, but rather it is a protection against other things: passing data to governments, having a hacker break in and leak it, that kind of thing.
By storing stuff securely, it mitigates that problem, I guess. A government would have to have a “live tap” to know what you write to the LLM, rather than being able to slurp out all your historical conversations.
So they established that language patterns measured by word frequency changed between 2022 and 2024. But did they also analyse frequencies across other 2-year time periods? How much difference is there for a typical word? It looks like they have a per-frequency significance threshold but then analysed all words at once, meaning that random noise would turn up a bunch of “significant” results. Maybe this is addressed in the original paper which is not linked.
Disabling JS worked
Not convinced this really belongs in Technology; he was inciting violence and would expect to be convicted on whatever medium.
That sounds bad.