DeepL's next-gen translation model is LLM-based. LLMs are kind of translation models that have been generalized to serve other purposes. I think you're not wrong that there's still some value to older models, but if you actually care about translation quality you would use both. If you want to use the cheapest thing I don't think a dedicated translator like DeepL is going to be superior to the free tier of a frontier language model.

I was really hoping this gave people the right to use their computers, but it really looks like it simply prevents "the government" from regulating the right to "make use of computational resources." So Google or Apple can still prevent me from using my phone for lawful purposes, the government just can't regulate it (and the government might not be able to write restrictions that prevent manufacturers from violating my right to compute.)

Google or Apple only hold an ability to prevent you to use your phone because the government itself enforces IP. So the restriction against regulations in this bill is only a partial and incomplete restriction against the government from interfering with people's right to compute.

Imagine if Montata required that all compute platforms sold in the state to be free of user restriction: That they be amenable to modification, that all source code, firmware and hardware specs be open, and when that is not the case - the company would be compelled to release the relevant information on pain of having assets seized, required to refund payments etc. That would have been a hoot :-)

Simply not sell to that state.

China has roughly .4 AC units per person while the USA has roughly 1 AC unit per person. You are simultaneously arguing everyone should have an AC, and that China should stop expanding their usage of AC.

I'd argue everyone should have an AC if they need one (probably China needs more than they have.) But we shouldn't build any more fossil fuel extraction, people who need AC should figure out how to do it with batteries and renewable energy. (Nuclear is fine, if it makes sense economically.) We don't need population control, we just need to add sufficiently large taxes on things we want less of. AC isn't a thing we want less of, it's carbon emissions.

You're confusing bullshit with jargon, which is something they talk about in the paper. The word synergize has a bad reputation, but its mere presence in a sentence is merely a signal, it doesn't mean the sentence is bullshit.

"We will actualize a renewed level of cradle-to-grave credentialing" is an example from the article - you can't actualize a level, you can't renew a level either. And "cradle-to-grave credentialing" is at best a bad way to describe some real concept. It's word-salad from start to finish. It's not coded language, it's bullshit.

Children have no frame of reference to understand when AI is totally making things up. 1:1 instruction is more valuable than ever to teach children to be critical and verify misinformation that AIs subtly interleave.

> If you wanna get your thing to rewrite curl or something, that's again really weird but fine, but just don't share it or try to make money off of it.

The whole point of the GPL is to encourage sharing! Making money off of GPL code is not encouraged by the text of the license, but it is encouraged by the people who wrote the licenses. Saying "don't share it" is antithetical to the goals of the free software movement.

I feel like everyone is getting distracted by protecting copyright, when in fact the point of the GPL is that we should all share and share alike. The GPL is a negotiation tactic, it is not an end unto itself. And curl, I might note, is permissively licensed so there's no need for a clean room reimplementation. If someone's rewriting it I'm very interested to hear why and I hope they share their work. I'm mostly indifferent to how they license it.

Orion is actually pointless, I don't understand why the mission goals are valuable. Partial success would be meaningless. Success is meaningless.

Starship in contrast has a variety of meaningful objectives. Even if Starship only achieves proving that cryogenic fuel transfer in LEO is possible that's a valuable mission goal in and of itself.

If you really think "the whole moon thing is pointless" NASA is pointless.

> If you really think "the whole moon thing is pointless" NASA is pointless.

There's more to NASA than Artemis! NASA's robotic spaceflight programs generate extremely high science return at relatively low cost. Missions like Psyche, Europa Clipper, and Dragonfly are humanity's real explorers.

And their aeronautics work is valuable as well. Low-boom, etc.

NASA does not seem to be constituted to be able to engage in a coherent manned space program of actual value. It's a long standing systemic issue.

They are great at pretending to deliver value, but there's no "there" there.

Orion doesn't seem operationally or financially capable of launching more than once a year. It's not that they don't want to do test flights, it's that they can barely do anything.

Which goes back to the Pork-on-a-stick requirement that everything be about keeping the workers still employed.

So far, Isaacman's competence has mostly consisted of (rightfully) throwing is predecessors under the bus. The real test will be if there are problems on his watch, but also it seems likely the result of having backbone will not be good for Isaacman and sycophants will end up running the agency again.

> Isaacman's competence has mostly consisted of (rightfully) throwing is predecessors under the bus.

That's irresponsbility and incompentence in any position, especially at that level of management.

How? He essentially said that the program would not work as designed and would probably kill people. That is both true and necessary to say in order to fix it--these are exactly the lessons NASA (allegedly) learned from Challenger.

The GGP said he threw people under the bus. That's different than making changes to a program.

> true

I don't believe you can know that. Saying it with assurance - by Internet randos or by the NASA administrator - is more a signal of a lack of analysis. Other people aren't idiots and complex technology issues aren't that certain - those are self-serving fairy tales.

Running a docker container having side effects on the host seems bad. You've just convinced me a little bit I want podman, and not docker.

Not me, docker is the standard, works great for me, if it didn't, I'd look at alternatives.

Podman also works great but one has to stop trying to use it as if it were docker.