Weighted means we should consider them differently. 1 tonne of CO2 produced when you have no idea what global warming is hits very different to 1 tonne of CO2 produced when you've known about global warming for 60 years and the entire world has come together and said lets start trying to reduce emissions.
If at that point you start slapping down 60 coal plants and moon shotting your co2 pollution then you should be blamed for global warming.
So whoever industrialises before there's scientific consensus on climate change gets to keep the benefits of their pollution and those who don't have to somehow skip that part of the tech tree and jump straight to renewables/nuclear?
I can see why the countries that were not first to industrialise are not on board with that idea.
So you're fine for every country to industrialize in the cheapest dirtiest way and destroy the world because other its "unfair". No one is saying they cant industrialize, only that they have to be cautious about their emissions and make an attempt to reduce them. For example, instead of operating a steel mill from the 60s and building a new one copying the old design use a new design that has less emissions.
Yes that is for the best. Countries like India and China are moving away from fossil fuels faster than previous developed countries did. Still not enough but surely something.
You can say that but fossil fuels are still a huge part of their energy grid and energy generation is only one part of industrializing. Even if they did it 100% renewably which they arent it would still be devastating to the world.
It doesnt matter if its right or not they will act in their own interest. But its pretty dumb that we sit around in the west arguing about the emissions from a few gas turbines when china is deploying 60 coal plants a year and burning rubbish.
The shenanigans AI companies have been up to recently (including boasting about criminal behaviour hacking other companies) without repercussions is pretty good proof that it isn't "easy".
The rights holders that got a settlement out of Anthropic spent two years and probably a fortune fighting in court. If that’s “easy”, then sure, this is a solved problem and there’s no point discussing it.
> An example where no one attemped to hold anyone liable isn't a counterexample to what happens when we do.
Yes it is (specifically, a counter example to it being easy, not that it’s possible). The whole world saw HuggingFaces get hacked and the collective legal response was crickets. The same world that’s had its legal system throw the DMCA and unauthorised access to computers legal book at researchers, games preservationists and random people trying to access media that they can’t licence in their region.
Did you read the article? It's saying that DNSSEC as an implementation to prevent MITM is flawed; other solutions that protect against MITM are proposed.
It's not reverence? I think that you're missing that it was a requirement. Basically every country (that followed ICANN's original rules) does this: .com.au, .co.nz, .co.jp, .com.mx, .co.ke (+ the org/net variants for each country)
The US is the only country where registering .com was allowed by ICANN (and not .com.us or something).
ICANN relaxed these rules in the 2010s I think, so now you can register 2LDs at most/all of those country TLDs.
No one making statements has an incentive to tell the truth though (in fact, they're all incentivised to keep proclaiming the RAMpocalypse will never end).
Producers (Samsung, SK Hynix etc.) will not say "prices expected to drop" or "demand expected to drop" even if it was true because then consumers would start delaying purchased.
The big buyers (OpenAI, hyperscalers etc.) have no incentive to say "supply expected to start opening up" because that would imply their growth trajectory is flattening; also a huge part of their moat now is just deployed RAM.
> If the human can read/understand it well enough to comment it, then it is readable by humans.
No, because the one who is writing the comment has context later reader dont. The writer knows what the requirements are, what he was trying to achieve and what he struggled to comprehend. Writer also presumably spent more time trying to understand it then the person coming later should.
It is not perfect, but the delta between 'cannot understand what agent wrote' and 'it makes sense to me right now' is already an improvement. That it may not be sufficient, doesn't mean it isn't a necessary condition.
Besides, it has always been like this. I sometimes can't even understand some of the things I wrote myself a couple of months ago, because I forgot the context. Good comments and documentation will help you re-acquire the context you need, not completely eliminate it.
Surely we all run these agents in isolated environments since months back already, right? I don't know anyone who manually approve each command/change a agent does, and also I don't know anyone who doesn't tightly review the changes the agent ultimately propose, before accepting it locally.
I'm sure people do that, I myself do, but just a couple weeks ago Github issue navigation was broken, you couldn't get past page 1 by the UI, a couple weeks before that github pages domain associations were broken too, just right now I saw on upwork a job ad where they were saying "we use AI to speed our workflow and you'll need to too" and then the list of urgent fixes ranged from: forms on administrators pages not working, values are being misplaced, forms somewhere else not saving on submission, ui bugs with panels not opening, sections on pages X with bugs on... So on and so forth.
I mean, these problems were there before (careless development) and it's probably possible to stabilise at some point with proper guardrails, it could also be that the first version was done with AI at meaningless cost compared to hiring someone, but I am a bit weary of this extending to ever more areas of software production without an accompanying increase in "true" model capabilities.
The more it kinda "works" the less people will be incentivised to review it properly and understand it - there's already people saying the future is agents talking to agents - when I saw minority report it sounded a bit too far-fetched but it might not be that far-fetched after all.
Gross Domestic Product is measuring *domestic* output, so adjusting for *domestic* pricing makes sense.
Measuring it in a foreign currency doesn’t without accounting for that is just answering “how many iphones can country X afford” (handwaving away the nuances of what GDP measures with “afford”) which might be a statistic you care about but probably isn’t (and isn’t for the point that was being made).
Business typically need to pay invoices for services they asked for?
reply