It is cool. I find the idea of trying to understand whether these types of models can come up with things like General relativity, or maybe some results really interesting.
One thing that I find interesting when thinking about colour perception, is that even if two people agree that a given colour is red, there is no way to know (as far as I am aware) that they actually perceive it in the same way. Maybe the brain of one person paints it red, and another paints it differently, and there is no way to know as we can't get into other people's heads.
That’s assuming that there is something like a “true” internal color that external colors are mapped onto. I think it’s more likely that for the brain, “red” is just “that hue signal range that red things have”. Which is roughly the same for everyone (modulo color blindness), in the sense that if one person sees two objects as red, another person will also see them as the same color, and will perceive the same brightness and hue relation relative to other objects with adjacent brightness and/or hue.
Meaning, there is no absolute color, the brain just learns what things have the same color, and how similar or dissimilar they are in hue to other objects. And for example “cold” colors are cold because we associate them with cold things, not because of some independent “qualia”.
My suggestion is always to look at what colors people think "go together". A Westerner looking at a Chinese temple will say "ugh, saturated red, light blue, and gold, all together?" My own self looking at a shirt my Eastern European wife loves: "dark blue, gray, and orange, bleah". It suggests that depending on your culture, you may have adopted a different visual response, where blood color is harmonious with sky color, or something like that.
If I'm looking at a certain color of green illumination and then cover one eye then the other, my perception of that color shifts slightly. It's still green, but with one eye it is "brighter" than the other eye.
From the article: "Google says it stopped responding to geofence warrants last year, because the company no longer stores such data and instead keeps location data on each user’s device. But law enforcement has made geofence requests of other tech companies, including Apple, Lyft, Snapchat, Uber, Microsoft and Yahoo"
That explains the changes Google did to the Timeline and why you can't see it in the browser anymore. That is great from them actually.
By stopping that one specific way they supported warrantless surveillance, Google probably managed to make the current round of litigation moot so that Google won't suffer a negative ruling on the merits. They can start all over again in a slightly different way once the attention goes down a bit.
Google moved to finally address this after the press started focusing on how hording location data could put women who visited reproductive healthcare clinics in legal jeopardy.
> Privacy advocates fear Google will be used to prosecute abortion seekers
Google has proven to not be a company to trust about privacy. It's their business model, along with selling data. A few good will public relations moves is likely nothing compared to the unseen dirt and deals they are doing.
Google is a largely autonomous machine, advancement within Google requires people to do visibly disruptive projects and prove initiative, and the next person that wants to advance may look to the same project to undo it
Leadership has their own separate causes that may form your view of what Google’s business model is, but more importantly its at the expense of ignoring the rest of Google and no interest in steering it because they are in the same system
Google never gets credit for shit like this, or their results in zero-knowledge maths and implementations, which are genuine public service beyond immediate productization.
If Google had decided to move on this back when people first started being falsely accused of crimes based on geofence data, they might be more deserving of credit.
For instance, in 2018:
> Avondale Man Sues After Google Data Leads to Wrongful Arrest for Murder
To be fair... I miss being able to access my location history data via the browser. So it's not a case of "google being evil", it's a case of "sane defaults", "shifting regulations", and "unintended consequences". Google should get the accolades they deserve in this case.
Google doesn't care that their business model is hording data in a manner that puts users at risk from any malicious government official.
They merely bowed to public pressure when the press turned against Google because continuing to horde location data put women seeking abortions in legal jeopardy.
To deserve accolades, they would need to stop hording all the other types of data and adopt a business model not based on spying on everyone as much as possible.
They killed a lot of functionality. For instance, if you opened the details of a place, it used to tell you when all your visits were. I feel the timeline is mostly abandonware these days.
From a factual standpoint it's good to acknowledge that pro-privacy work. From a standpoint of overall evaluating the actions, goals, incentives, and impacts of the company, they mean basically nothing. They are a surveillance advertising company, they will never, and can never, have a positive impact on privacy or human rights. To do so would destroy them.
No - they are an advertising company. It is to their advantage to be ahead of the game with something like federated ML if that is where society is headed. To say Google has no positive impact is absurd - engineers there generally care about protecting user data. There is probably better access controls at Google than anywhere else. Sure there are pressures like you said but a gross misplace of user trust is what would destroy them.
they kind of made the game, they are hardly victims here. I shouldn't have to be in a position to decide whether I trust them with a profile of all of my history and activities, especially when I never had an option to opt out, much less opt in.
I am probably far more sympathetic than you can ever imagine but the antecedents are not really unique to google. The technical destination of targeting advertising just looks like this given privacy laws (well the lack thereof).
Like I get it but be mad that congress is a bunch of goofy old people who give zero shits. If you can point at some lobbying by google then by all means so be it - certainly they appeared to have kissed the ring as of late. But keep in mind googlers personally direct money into the eff every year too.
>they will never, and can never, have a positive impact on privacy or human rights. To do so would destroy them.
I dislike Google as much as the next guy, but, regardless of its intentions in making Chrome and Android open source and secure, it has a huge positive impact on privacy and human rights.
This is a bizarre take that doesn't account for the impact google has had. Over the last 15 years, Google has steadily and deliberately maximized the commoditization of user data, single handedly driven the adtech industry into an unstoppable enshittification engine, built a moat out of making the internet a much worse place, swung around their money and legal resources to squash small companies, destroyed users lives when they made the mistake of depending on Google for anything important, are enthusiastic participants in global scale political manipulation, censorship, and outright market manipulation.
The purpose of a thing is what it does - android and chrome and everything else Google does serves to maintain or extend their control over the value and flow of user data.
Android and Chrome are net negatives. Google subsumed Firefox, made Mozilla beholden to them, derailed their viability as a competitor to chrome, poached talent, manipulated user exposure, degraded performance targeting competitors, and otherwise engaged in ruthless corporate fuckery to get where they are, with near absolute dominance of the browser market. Android is touted as an alternative to Apple, but they just as enthusiastically build up walled gardens, abuse consumer trust, play into monopolistic market dynamics, empower ISPs and others to force a "you actually rent your device" type model on consumers, and otherwise maximize the amount of money extracted per user without any concurrent return in value.
The internet, smartphones, and browsers are a dystopian, cynical abomination, and if there's any justice in the universe, AI will result in the total dissolution of giant tech companies like Google, and there will be a future free of institutions like it.
FWIW, I think Google is overly-hated, but it's hard to frame them as a bleeding-heart altruist. Much like Apple and Microsoft, they have every incentive to work with the government and basically no obligation to individual consumers. It feels likely that these decisions are made to cover their own ass, and not out of overwhelming respect for Android users.
I worked at google some years back, in the VR team for a while. I can't speak to all of google, but at least in that org, the amount of nonsense we had to go through to make sure there wasn't some way some genius could figure something out related to personal information by correlating various pieces of data that we were storing in good faith to improve the product was absurd.
They were trying really really hard to do the right thing. Lots of people really cared about it, many to the point of it being detrimental to just making the product better.
From my time there, a favorite quip of mine, towards some new startup we bought was: welcome to Google, here is a list of every settlement and consent decree you are now subject to.
>Much like Apple and Microsoft, they have every incentive to work with the government and basically no obligation to individual consumers. It feels likely that these decisions are made to cover their own ass, and not out of overwhelming respect for Android users.
I don't get it. In the first sentence you're claiming that there's "basically no obligation to individual consumers", but when they do a pro-consumer thing, you dismiss it as being "made to cover their own ass". Which one is it? Is this just a lot of words to say that Google isn't as pro-consumer as you'd like it to be?
I don't think Google genuinely does a lot of these things to truly be pro-consumer. One could see these kind of actions as them not wanting to have to deal with the bad publicity of handling all this data that they overall haven't been able to really monetize well anyways.
The truth is probably somewhere in between if you were to actually sit down and talk with all the people involved with such a decision.
Regardless of the reasons though I do think we should give praise to companies and organizations doing things that ultimately benefit us though. We should give feedback as to the changes we like to let decision-makers know people actually do care.
Exactly. A lot of people acted like the attacks on Waymos during the ICE protests were random but they were anything but. All the local organizers are well aware of Google's contracts with ICE as well as the tributes Google paid to Trump.
How is this relevant? Just because you disagree with some vague connection between two entities doesn't give you the right to destroy property. That's the definition of a childish tantrum. Inflicting blind pain on random, unrelated people because you don't get your way.
There's a rhetorical dodge in this argument where it transitioned from talking about property destruction to talking about harming people.
One can cause the other, but the burden of proof is on the claimant that wrecking a mass-produced special purpose autonomous vehicle did more tangible harm to a human being than make some engineer sad before they rolled up their sleeves and built a replacement.
The Waymo emphatically did not care it was destroyed.
Should I be legally allowed to assault you or vandalize your property because I think your political orientation or that of your company is not "on the right side of history" ?
Come on. Not that I support destroying anything, private or public, for rhetorical effect. But assaulting someone or destroying their property has an incomparably larger impact on that individual than destroying a vehicle that won't even show up in Google's balance sheet.
I didn't justify anything. Just pointed out the false equivalence. We could also argue about the effect of systemic shoplifting, but that is also neither here nor there.
They don't get credit for this particular thing because many, many users lost years of their location data in the transition, and most of the rest had theirs corrupted. It was a poorly-executed transition that screwed a lot of people, so even they themselves don't tout it much.
Only two of these companies actually needs your location data to function, it's Uber and Lyft. There's a reasonable case telcos might also need the data for network purposes, but cell tower data isn't going to be as accurate as GPS. It's safe to say everyone else is basically collecting data for serving ads even if they say otherwise.
The opposite of dragnet surveillance, which is what flock and geofencing warrants are: data aggregated and shared without the consent of the user, is data collection minimization even when done for security or apps.
> but cell tower data isn't going to be as accurate as GPS
Worth noting that 6G MIMO beamforming requires being able to calculate incredibly accurate location information in order to tune the signal towards your device. I don't know enough to be able to speak more in depth about this, but my guess would be that the adage of cell AP based aGPS is likely to be able to surface far more accurate device location than before.
> but cell tower data isn't going to be as accurate as GPS
My knowledge in this topic is not deep, but cell precision should be pretty accurate, because modern cell tower areas are much smaller, then to have well tuned beamformer it need to have relative precise angles between antennas and know signal travel time (distance). I think it should achieve something 30 or 15 meter precision (doing assumption that distance is accurate in 50/100ns order)
> Only two of these companies actually needs your location data to function, it's Uber and Lyft.
I disagree that they need my location data. I am perfectly capable of telling them the location where I want a pick-up, and they are perfectly capable of imposing penalties if I incorrectly report it. Just like happened with cabs in the old days, who were somehow able to pick me up without real-time location tracking.
(Not to say that you shouldn't be able to just turn on location tracking if that's what you want to do, but there's no reason that they can't function without it.)
Completely concur with this, though I do miss being able to browse for places in Google Maps and easily see when I was last there. This functionality disappeared when my location information went local only.
I hate this change. I loved how the original Timeline worked, and now it's unusable. I don't care about courts subpoeaning my data. I'd love to opt in to previous status quo. I don't care about the loss of "privacy" in the context that was never important to me.
Most people are like me: they don't care about being protected from the courts, because the courts don't pose risk to them, and as a matter of statistical fact, they are correct.
This position is insanely illiberal. This isn't about your individual safety, or how willing you as an individual are to abdicate your right to privacy. It's about the knock-on effect of living under panopticon conditions, the chilling effect, the loss of trust, and the nearly unlimited potential for abuse. This individualistic attitude makes it so easy to divide and conquer each and every one of your rights and protections, and will leave you less free as an individual than if you were willing to look at the bigger picture and stand up for rights you don't personally care about.
Maybe, but in MN, they just decided as a matter of the state constitution that this basically isn't allowable.
You see, the cops had a murder in a remote place. They got a warrant, and the warrant showed 12 people in and out of a small area near the murder, of which one phone went there many times.
They got another warrant, for that one phone, and traced it back to someone who is obviously the murderer. The courts decided to suppress this, never mind the cops got warrants at both steps, and their investigation was as minimally invasive as one could imagine for this sort of thing.
So it's not unreasonable to wonder just what we're protecting sometimes, as I understand that while the decision here doesn't technically ban all geofence warrants, it makes them nearly impossible as a practical matter.
Exactly, and to make sure that never happens again why not just arrest all 12 of those people until they prove their innocence? With enough constant surveillance we can be positive that no bad person ever gets away with anything.
Honestly, do you look at the justice system in the United States and think "You know the real issue here is that not enough people are being punished"?
> Honestly, do you look at the justice system in the United States and think "You know the real issue here is that not enough people are being punished"?
I have a family member who was murdered. I have a lot of sympathy for victims of violent crimes like this and a hard time understanding people who want to let the murderers go free, because I know what it's like living under the threat of one who kept a list of who they intended to kill next.
But look at how many people have been unjustly/incorrectly imprisoned for many years in the US, often based on poverty or racism. Would you be willing to jail 5 people for life-without-parole if you're 100% sure ONE of them was the murderer of your family member? What about two people?
I've never seen someone get sent to prison just because their phone was too close to a crime scene, there's always more to corroborate it because it's not much on its own, even if the MN case comes pretty close with only one person in a remote area with the dead body over and over who also coincidentally had motive, etc. Most of the famous cases of what you mention rely on humans identifying a person and DNA later exonerating them.
So I'm loathe to rule out the use of more accurate ways to pinpoint investigations when the status quo is someone who thinks they saw the person at the scene, when we know how unreliable that is.
That feels like throwing out DNA because there are many explanations of why it might be at a crime scene in favor of good old fashioned witness identification, never mind one is a lot better than the other, even if both of them have been misused terribly at times.
That's why I think we should want the cops to use methods that cause fewer people to get wrongly investigated, because it is a burden. It's true, your phone being too close to a crime scene doesn't make you a criminal, but it's probably a better reason for investigating you than traditional things like "I saw a guy who looked like that at the scene" which has much more frequently caused the harm you cite, and yet it's been a staple of courts longer than any of us have been alive.
I think in much the same way that your life has been touched by a murderer and it has influenced your opinion, if you were wrongly accused of a crime it would likewise have influence.
That being said, I'm sympathetic to your point here and I'm not advocating for eye witness testimony becoming the only source of truth. If I could somehow know for sure that this would ONLY be used for the worst of violent crimes it would soften my opinion, but I am very sure that the more normalized this sort of dragnet investigation becomes the standard of what "requires" it's use will get lower and lower.
If policing were entirely focused on violent and property crimes many of my opinions might change, but realistically I think we can agree that whatever investigative technique we are talking about will primarily end up being used to prosecute drug crimes, because that is much safer and more profitable for the police. Do you really want to be on a suspect list everytime someone thinks they saw a drug deal somewhere and you happened to be near?
Sorry, I’m not chilled at all by the prospect that the court can subpoena my data from Goole. It can already issue a warrant to arrest me, and to search my actual home.
The trouble is that you aren't chilled at all today.
Tomorrow's government may decide that attending certain protests, or having "associated" with certain people was always a crime. It doesn't even need to be "retroactive", since enforcement and interpretation of the law is always adjustable in the present.
This sort of thing is happening today in certain countries. Why are you so sure it won't happen to you in yours?
It kind of sounds like you are saying you don't care if other people are hurt, as long as it doesn't impact you. I hope that isn't what you actually mean.
Most people are like me: they don't care about being protected from the courts, because the courts don't pose risk to them, and as a matter of statistical fact, they are correct.
Most people don't have your luxury of not worrying about government overreach.
It sure would have been useful for governments in the South to grab the location data of enslaved people trying to escape—would they, like the average user today, have known to turn off these settings?
It's great for Texas to buy data from brokers about women trying to access reproductive healthcare across state lines from apps carelessly sharing it. The courts don't pose a risk to you until the law changes and suddenly they do.
This is about the government getting data through a loophole that violates the 4th amendment—the difference between a society that collects everything and presumes guilt, and one that targets specific people when they're suspected of a specific crime.
The problem is, unfortunately, those data lakes are in the category "safe until they aren't." Germany has some of the most restrictive data collection laws in the European sphere, for example, because they know that the courts (and executive) don't pose a risk to most Germans... Until suddenly they do, and the only defense is not having aggregated the data in the first place.
To be clear, no disagreement with your self-risk-assessment, and reasonable people can disagree on where their paranoia threshold is.
Germany has some of the most restrictive data collection laws. And yet... Germany has a central registry of all Jews, because of the address registration and the religion tax. The last thing you would expect them to have!
Huh? My understanding is that they have religion data only for catholics/protestants, and only on local level, not in a central database. Which yes that should be killed too but no other faith is recorded, since they only collect taxes for those two.
Places that aren't the United States aren't obliged to treat their history of speech the way the US does.
The US's protections are rooted in observations of local authority (and Crown-backed authority) trying to disrupt what the revolutionaries self-observed to be peaceful demonstrations, peaceful entry of thought into the public discourse, and public discourse itself. It's grounded in Enlightenment-era belief that unsuppressed discourse is the best path to real truths, and respect for real truths via the distributed, democratic comprehension of them are the foundation of good governance and good society.
Germany watched a significantly post-Enlightenment, free, democratic people talk its way from democracy straight into fascism, and concluded that some kinds of discourse are so toxic to the actual practice of discovery of the aforementioned truths that they are to be excluded from the public sphere.
Both cultures came by their conclusions honestly and there's some merit to both points of view.
In the last couple of weeks, seeing all the announcements of new models by OAI, Anthropic and Chinese companies I was thinking if Google has something up their sleeve, but this news suggests otherwise.
So how likely is that these compromises will start affecting the non-cli and non-open-source tools ? For example other password managers (in the form of GUI's or browser extensions).
The problem is that there is not enough infrastructure for EVs. If you can't charge at home (e.g. you live in a flat), it is hard to live with an EV and it's much more expensive than the ICE.
I had a rental EV while I was there for 6 weeks last summer, it was a pretty low spec jeep model and I stayed at mates places all over England none of which had parking or charging, to tell the truth charging was a bit spotty in town, but if I was just going around the local area the battery was good for a week or more. My take away was I would definitely rent an EV again, but a lot of the older charging infrastructure still sucks, under-provisioned at peak times, and cost 2-3 times what a similar charge would cost here in NZ. I ended up doing most of my charging at the Tesla superchargers on the motorways and at supermarkets in town. I did 2900 miles total and it was about the same cost as petrol in the end, but worth it as the EV was cheaper to rent and was automatic (which renters charge a premium in UK)
Not sure fast charging all the time is good for battery life though. 99% of my driving in NZ is on a normal 10A overnight charge
Local government can quickly change that, if they get their act together. Here in the Hague, there's literally thousands of public chargers available on the city's residential streets. Coupled with the fact that the charging-price is city-mandated at a fixed rate (currently around 35ct/kwh), this gives a perfectly fine solution for most people. (I can charge at home, for 20ct/kwh currently, so that's even nicer)
Not in the UK. Local governments (councils) are going bankrupt and are saddled with an overwhelming burden to pay for adult and child social care. There's no money for much else
What is actually the realistic cost. Covering infra, the charger and the maintenance of everything involved. Power and transfer included, with transfer including any standing charges. And after that you probably want decent margin to well run the business.
I don't expect 10 thousands of the fast chargers in my town.
I'd love to have slow chargers built into the street lights. Not everyone owns a house, and the public charging usually meets or exceeds the petrol price per mile.
If you're referring to DC charging it's going to be pretty expensive. The construction and power electronics for a DC station is going to be in the millions.
For AC the rectifier is inside the car and the L2 chargers is just a fancy plug. Price should just be the base electricity cost.
Governments would do better to try to fix the bureaucracy around installing L2 chargers in shared living spaces. It's a problem they created and it should be on them to fix. But it guess that's harder than impossible mandates and high EV taxes.
If a significant percentage of cars start to become EVs then spaces where people regularly park overnight will get chargers because it will allow whoever is operating them to make a bit of money selling electricity. You don't have to be making a huge profit margin to make it worth your while to have people passively buying ~200kWh/month of electricity from you.
The same applies to workplaces, especially if solar causes electricity to cost less during daylight hours, and then it becomes convenient to get an EV if there is a charger where you park at night or where you park during the day.
that would depend on the infrastucture cost to install such charging and to maintain it? This is kerbside slow charging presumably overnight. Note that spaces in these residental areas are typically not even marked spaces; the worst outcome might be losing more footpath space to charging infra for road users.
Non-fast chargers aren't very big. They can be installed in lampposts, or in lampost-diameter boxes sunk into the pavement (with the socket sticking out at the top)
About 65% of homes are owned (either outright or via mortgage), but I can't estimate how many of them have garage or off street/driveway parking they can charge their car on.
There's usually very little of the garage space available.
Electricity is expensive in the UK (~25p/kWh) But not gas car expensive. It is £1.57/L (£5.94/gallon).
The EV infrastructure is also pretty dang far along, especially compared to the US. Remember that everything in the UK is a lot smaller and closer together than it is in the US. Further, the UK has a functional train system for long distance travel. You can go from the top of Dunnet Head to Lizard Point in a 15 hour drive.
People downvoting me, Look up chargers in plugshare to see just how many there are in the UK, it's a lot. And also correct my math if it's wrong. An 80kWh car costs £20 to fill up. A 55L car, which has about the same range, costs £85 to fill up.
Also if you are able to charge at home you can subscribe to a smart tariff that gives you electricity for 4p/kWh overnight. That’s £3.20 to fill an 80kWh battery that on a modern car will take you up to 320 miles.
It's cheaper to purchase new bike/used car, tax and insure it, service and fuel, than to use train to ride to work.
Annual train ticket form my small town (25 miles from the Zone 1 of London) is over £5,500. Five GRAND. For the pleasure of standing every time and a much higher risk of getting mugged.
£15k will give you REALLY nice bike or pretty new car. After third year you're saving thousands. Of course if you decided to buy something old and used, you're saving from the second quarter of the first year on.
It's only functional because not everyone can afford another car to work.
It can be, depends on a lot of factors. Obviously flying ryanair will often be the cheapest way to go, but if you do any sort of other regular airline trains will quickly start to win out.
And it's not as if you can fly everywhere in england. As soon as you start looking at more oddball flights (for example, london to birmingham) ryanair goes away as an option and all the flights end up super expensive.
Trains, on the other hand, remain cheap for pretty much the entire nation. You can basically go anywhere by train for under £60. A lot cheaper if you book in advance.
That is because of the cost structure of trains vs planes. Trains require a huge amount of infrastructure, and have higher labour costs because they are slower (so the same journey means people work for longer).
Another problem is that fuel taxes are a reasonably equitable means of paying for the roads, and EVs don't have that -- the closest would be vehicle miles * weight or some such.
Equivalents of fuel taxes for EVs have been announced recently - charging directly on a per mile basis.
> The rate of tax will be 3 pence per mile for fully electric cars; this is around half of the 6 pence per mile the average petrol or diesel driver pays in fuel duty.
In my state they decided to tax EVs punitively through our annual registration fee. I already pay an additional $200 for my EV registration, which is $50 more than the average ICE driver pays is gas taxes. I drive considerably less than the average TN driver. Next year it will be $274.
At least in the US, EVs are not heavier than the average driver's vehicle, though they are heavier than other vehicles in their class. And practically all consumer vehicles are nothing compared to semi trucks.
that is absolutely not the problem. We have more than enough li, subject to cost of extraction. New chemistries dont even need it. you need to update your talking points.
I think France seem serious in actually switching to open source/EU software. I recently had a telecon on Visio (France's Teams/Zoom substitute) and it worked well in a browser with ~ 10 participants.
I think it would have been much better, if the nation that launched that mission did not in the same time start a war... I personally simply cannot separate these two things.
Even with darkness in the world, it’s still healthy and moral to appreciate the good that happens. I’d say it’s actually important to do so in life in general.
Emotional maturity is balancing both the good and bad in life and not letting either completely dominate your reality.
I’m finding this a lot. I always found the scrutiny of Trump to be quite over the top and never really found him to be any more corrupt or awful than any other politician, just that he was openly anti establishment. Which is what I guessed was the reason for the hyper scrutiny. I ask some people about Iraq and Afghanistan and they never really seem to know as much or have as much detail as they do with how illegal this Iran war is. I find that odd and have maybe chalked it up to this over-scrutiny again. To be clear I actually think this is good. I feel like we might finally be looking at politicians with the amount of scrutiny we need to, but am not optimistic it will continue when the next pro-establishment character is installed. People also seem to be on board with the Ukraine war, which I also understand but find strange that fighting wars on foreign soil are sometimes “good” and sometimes “bad”? For me I have a simple rule; if they’re not at the birder of my own country I’m not interested. You can argue details and complexities but the way I see it is that wars are a fucking mess and there are lots of complexities that can be used to sell you either way. If you’re not there, you don’t know. I always wonder if France and the UK hadn’t declared war on Germany, would WWII ever happened? It’s an interesting one and more of a thought experiment but the implications are interesting and raises some very touchy moral questions. It’s basically a massive trolley problem question with lots of unknowns.
"People on board with the Ukraine war" - that reads as if Ukraine invaded another country, started a war, and people somehow support that.
Russian invaded Ukraine, and people are on board with helping Ukraine defend itself - because Russia is trying to reconstitute the soviet union, and Ukraine is just one stop along the way.
Yeh. I mean your comment kind of reads like the whole thing is simple and Russia just randomly invaded Ukraine 4 years ago for no reason. Rather than there being rising pro-Russian sentiment in the east for years resulting in an all out civil war 12 years ago when the government went after the separatists.
Then you say well they were Russian backed so Russia were involved from the beginning.
Then I say well, where were these separatists born, what language do they speak, and how do they identify?
And then you say something about propaganda, then I say something about propaganda.
Then I say what I said in the beginning which was maybe if you’re not actually there, and involved, you should stay out of other people’s shit.
> I mean your comment kind of reads like the whole thing is simple and Russia just randomly invaded Ukraine 4 years ago for no reason.
Not randomly for no reason - the reason is to bring the former soviet bloc nations back under Russia's control, to rebuild the Russian empire. Putin has even spoken openly how he does not recognize Ukraine as a real nation or a real identity and that all of Ukraine, it's land, resources and people belong to Russia. And he's on a genocidal mission to manifest that reality.
Putin is happy to use separatist movements (organic or not) as tools and thin pretexts for his expansive imperial ambitions, sure - but separatists aren't the reason for the war - Putin's imperialist ambitions are.
Ah you’re one of those people where it’s like talking to a wall. Well you seem to have an intimate relationship with Putin so maybe you can just ring him up and have a chat with him or something.
Let me put it this way. Imagine you’re at school and there are two kids that have a long history starting to shout and even throw fists at each other. You come over from the other end of the playground, try to understand the situation the best you can… and start throwing fists at the kid you think is wrong?
You’re acting like a proper ape and seem to lack any imagination or ambition for a peaceful future. You know there are other ways? Smarter ways. We have mind blowing technology that is optimised for death and destruction but you don’t reckon we can, like, maybe just ASK the people what they want? Nobody ever asks. Nobody talks.
Everyone’s sold this skewed reality that bombing people is the only way we can resolve conflict and you’ve been sold it by massive companies that make bombs.
Anyway this conversation is causing way too much negative emotion in me and it’s not like you’re even understanding what I’m saying so I’m just gonna bow out I think. At least for you there are plenty of people like you and there will be plenty more wars for you to drool over and completely understand with your big brain.
> Everyone’s sold this skewed reality that bombing people is the only way we can resolve conflict and you’ve been sold it by massive companies that make bombs.
Yes, Ukraine can only resolve the conflict by winning - which means killing lots of Russians and driving Russia out.
Russia can resolve the conflict by... leaving. That's it. They just have to go home. No bombs necessary.
Alas, then it seems this exchange is ending where it started - with the reality inverting insinuation that Ukraine and it's allies are the bloodthirsty warmongers here, because they continue to defend themselves from an invading army.
I do agree that waging war is generally unwise and tragic - but the people waging the war here are the Russians. The obstacle to a peaceful resolution to the war are - once again - the Russians.
You missed the argument. When we are talking about faculty, yes their result is the only thing that matters, so if it was produced quicker with a LLM, that's great. But when we are talking about the student, there is a drastic difference in the student in the with LLM vs without LLM cases. In the latter they have much better understanding. And that matters in the system when we are educating future physicists.
reply