But that makes wildly different incentives to enforce, depending on the target. We all know this stuff is all about revenue enhancement, and in that capacity, the targets will become the whales.
Or how about the curb weight of the car? Higher mass means you're doing a lot more damage in an accident. People might think twice about buying an F250 for their grocery getter.
It's not stated here, but is it implied that app platforms that, themselves, have an "app store", would be required to read this datum and pass it to their app store?
For example, I've got a map application on my phone that lets me download maps, widgets, POI lists, etc. from their app store. It seems like enabling that age signal through this exchange is exactly what the politicians are looking for.
My wife grew up in Shanghai, and you'll have to go quite some distance to find someone more critical of the PRC and CCP than she is. And it's with good reason.
She grew up during the cultural revolution, and was largely raised by her grandmother because literally every other person in her extended family was in prison or work camp, not because of anything they had actually done wrong, but for political reasons because the whole family was blacklisted.
And that's not just the old days. Her father died as a direct result of Chinese Covid policy. During the pandemic her cousins still in the country would ask her (on Skype) "is X true?", and largely their perception of what was going on was false. She would exfiltrate encrypted news reports to them - until those started getting blocked. Her dad's estate still has affairs that need to be resolved, but we've decided not to return to China until Xi is gone, as it's just not safe. It doesn't get much airplay, but there are currently a couple of hundred Americans who are being illegally detained in China right now. It's not worth the risk.
My first trip to China was about 30 years ago, shortly after we got married. And back then, I would have said that you were right. Honestly, it felt like for the average person in their day-to-day-lives, the Chinese were less under the governmental thumb than we are. People from the countryside would bring their produce into the city to sell, or cook dumplings and buns to sell on the side of the street - stuff that in America we'd have to get permits for. It seemed that the oligarchy had an understanding with the people: let us control the big picture, and we'll look the other way for the little things. But Chinese politics is a pendulum swinging very widely. From Tienanmen Square and Tank Man, it had swung quite a bit the other way. But today, it's come back 180-degrees. Xi is really trying for a Cultural Revolution 2.0.
These impressions largely match what I hear from other Chinese immigrants - except for Party members, who tend not to want to talk about it at all. I'm afraid that you've been listening to too much propaganda.
i don't doubt your experience, but just know it might be skewed and not representative of everyone's opinions
the sense i get from my chinese friends are that the CCP is an annoying parent but they understand the challenges both domestic and international and largely agree with the compromises
How do they feel about and respond when asked about the Taiwan question?
Do they either clam up or act like it's a mortal insult to suggest that an independent democratic nation should not live in fear of impending violent conquest?
Because that's the kind of reaction that makes the reports of "happy life, all's good" a little harder to digest.
Not saying that's a unanimous opinion / response, of course. But it certainly seems to be the default.
About 50% of Chinese people I meet very much agree with the government that it's part of China and always has been. The other 50% know that it's clearly independent and are tired of the whole act by the Chinese government. But the people I've talked to about this are people with the means to travel, and many of them have been to Taiwan. So it may not be representative of the typical person on the street. I've been to China several times and I don't want to ask it there, but that's less out of fear of the government but more than I don't want to bother locals with politics and present myself as an enlightened foreigner, since nobody likes that shit. Just like nobody would like a Chinese guy going to Alabama and telling the people they need to embrace socialism if they ever want to escape poverty.
> The other 50% know that it's clearly independent and are tired of the whole act by the Chinese government.
Chinese living in a foreign country, or Chinese willing to discuss such issues with you in China is a highly biased sample set. That is high school math you suppose to learn at the age of 17.
The majority of US support for Taiwan and it's current situation is owed entirely to supporting a military junta from the mainland that massacred the local Taiwainese who objected to it and suppressed civil society.
Are you saying you would've been neutral on an invasion of Taiwan before 1985 or so, since it wasn't a democracy?
I applaud your consistency and I await your categorical opposition to the United States and Israel.
Or is there some nuance and you feel, in order to remain consistent, that it would be permissible in principle for China to bomb Taiwan and execute their head of state so long as they kept it to an air war and relied on their local agents on the ground?
Cultural Revolution is all about totally politicalised society, extremely polarised, regular people fight against each other based on ideologies. Isn't that the current west?
> because literally every other person in her extended family was in prison or work camp
translate for you - her family was heavily involved in politics, it is just unlucky that her family was not on the winning side, so she hates whatever happened.
posting from Shanghai, going back to the 3rd world west in a few days.
translate for you - her family was heavily involved in politics, it is just unlucky that her family was not on the winning side, so she hates whatever happened.
This is false. When you have no idea at all what you're talking about, you should just be quiet.
The problems were that (in order of increasing specificity)
(a) We're talking about Marxism here, and Marxism is all about class warfare. Before the Communists her family had been part of the "landlord" class, and thus were enemies of the people by definition.
(b) One uncle was tricked by the anti-rightist movement. If you're not aware of this, it was earlier in Mao's reign. Mao said, essentially, "we know we haven't gotten everything perfect, so tell us what we could do better". Wife's uncle was stupid enough to believe him, the result of which was a 20-year prison sentence, and also his wife being forced to divorce him, and further tainting the family. (Something on the order of 500K to 2M people were persecuted like this.)
(c) Any outside influences were suspect at best, and often de facto proof of espionage. She had an uncle who was a US citizen. And her father had traveled extensively internationally, as a sea captain (never mind the fact it was the PRC government, as the sole employer in China, who put him onto those ships).
(d) Wife's family side had been in theater. One aunt had been in a theater troupe with Jiang Qing (Mao's wife), and knew at least some of her, ummm, lower class history. Putting her, and the rest of the family, in prison kept them shut up and warned them not to talk any further. (This may sound far-fetched, but consider what the Gang of Four was up to during the Cultural Revolution, and that she was a member.)
posting from Shanghai, going back to the 3rd world west in a few days.
You might do well to read, e.g., Shanghai Tears by Pu Gui Yuan to better understand what was happening back in those days. Then again, I don't imagine you can just go buy a copy of it over there.
No. But there are actual circumstances here that differ between China's actions and the rest of the planet. Specifically...
While the rest of the world was doing stuff like ensuring that as many of its citizens as possible were vaccinated, and letting the population gradually work up to herd immunity so that controls could be gradually loosened, China kept the population at a hard lockdown right to late 2022, and then opened up completely. It was as if they just opened the floodgates.
There were actually people arguing that China was doing this intentionally, with the plan being to thin out the top-heavy aging demographic in the country. I'm not necessarily advocating for this theory, but illustrating that the very fact that there's a colorable argument for it demonstrates how irresponsible Chinese leadership were.
The result was that in my father-in-law's retirement home, literally EVERY caretaker came down with the virus together, which obviously led to most of the residents getting sick. And given the way covid worked, that meant a whole lot of deaths.
Adding insult to injury, his death certificate attributes the cause of death to heart disease. As a matter of policy, all deaths were attributed to any other condition the patient might have had, however trivial, unless covid could be proven. And proving it would involve in declining to properly dispose of the body, paying for the autopsy and so forth. But there's no doubt (having talked to him every day on Skype) that covid is what killed him.
China's policy reduced the death rate by a factor of about 75% relative to the US.
The zero-Covid policy kept Covid out of the country until an effective vaccine was developed and deployed to about 90% of the population. The main problem was that there's a widespread belief in East Asia (including in Taiwan, Singapore, etc.) that vaccination is dangerous for old people, so the vaccination rate was lowest among the most vulnerable group. A lot of old people simply refused to get vaccinated, despite large vaccination drives and public messaging asking them to do so.
Then, as you said, the zero-Covid policy was eliminated overnight, and practically everyone in the country got Covid within 1-2 months. However, because most people were vaccinated, the death rate was far lower than in the West.
All in all, the zero-Covid policy saved several million lives in China. This is based on retrospective studies by outside researchers, not on official statistics.
The fact that the USA and others are also trending authoritarian isn't really relevant. The point I was trying to make is that people have legit fears of the PRC government, enough so that legitimate business like settling a deceased parent's affairs isn't sufficient to convince people to enter the country.
You haven't addressed at all the parts about blacklisting whole families for political reasons, or horrible return-to-normal policies for covid-19 three years ago, or the general pendulum-swing-back-to-evil trend.
I don't doubt you, but what if someone's else's wife felt differently. Would that counteract your wife? Or is your wife special in an objective sense and her intuitions about hypotheticals are more valid than anyone else's?
Your wife feels a certain way and wanted to avoid a certain hypothetical. But since it didn't happen, we have no way of knowing how relevant these feelings are.
How can we address blacklisting and covid response if you are insisting that any comparison isn't relevant and that we should evaluate it with no baseline?
I don't recall insisting that no comparison could be relevant. If you have any particular comparison to offer, you should do that, else your criticism is vapor.
Sheesh, an actual Whataboutism. The fact that "the US does it too!" won't help Grandparent poster/his wife if they get detained in China. GP says "there are currently a couple of hundred Americans who are being illegally detained in China right now", most likely they are dual citizens, or were born in China, and from China's point of view, one can't lose the Chinese citizenship, and they're detaining their own citizens.
I would also like to know if these are dual citizens or not. I think it would be newsworthy if hundreds of US passport holders who do not have chinese passports also were being held in China and not charged with any crime and unable to access consular services.
Sensationalizing claims then qualifying them later is inherently dishonest.
> A two sentence comment requesting one piece of information that is highly likely to be collated with the original information for any reputable source
You would describe that as "relentless, harassing, and tangental?" rather than say "I can see how that would be a relevant question, I'm not sure."
I hope your mental health improves in the future, it's unfortunately not possible to assume good faith on your part when you jump to thought terminating cliches.
I agree with everything you said, except that #1 is clearly wrong. I can prove it with one word: autotune.
At least in popular, mainstream culture, the viewer is heavily invested in the identity of the artist. The quality of the "art" is secondary. That's how we get music engineered by committee. And it's how we get paparazzi, People Magazine, and so forth.
On the other hand, this isn't anything new at all. We've had this kind of thing for decades. Real art still manages to survive at the margins.
All this being said, I think comparing the art market and popular music markets is foolish. 12yo boys aren't buying emerging mixed-media artists. But they are picking Spotify songs.
When I buy art, I have often spoken with the artist in the past couple days, or I am aware of their history and story and how they developed their art as a response to some other movement or artist collective.
It's rare for people to buy art just bc oil paints go brrrrrm
> It's rare for people to buy art just bc oil paints go brrrrrm
It is rare to buy oil paints period. It is an expensive luxury in more than one way.
That being said I do buy art hanging from the wall because it looks pretty. In fact that is the only way i ever did. I see it. I feel it. I say “hi, hello, how much? That sounds good, here you go. Yes please package it.” And then i hang it on my wall. Don’t care about who the artist is and couldn’t tell you.
What they've chosen as examples to illustrate the strength of the new model surprises me.
The "cubism" example seems like it would be a closer fit to something like stained glass or something. I don't think the thing really understands what cubism was all about. Cubist painters were trying to free themselves from the confines of a single integral plane of perspective by allowing themselves to show various parts of the image from different viewpoints, different times, different styles, etc.
The division of the image into geometric shapes is just a by-product of that quest, whereas the examples here have made it the sum total of the whole piece.
This feels to me like an example of how LLMs still don't "understand" what the art means, and are just aping its facade.
I had a similar thought before realizing that I'm pretty sure what they were demonstrating wasn't art style, but adherence to correct physical dimensions and construction of the buildings referenced, that was then expressed in an art style (or reasonable facsimile thereof). The before prompts would just conjure a random building out of thin air, the after prompts searched the web for reference material and then used that in image generation.
And actually, the link I saw a bit ago was this [0] which is more in-depth and has a lot more examples + prompts.
Saying it's "fully conscious" is silly, and anyone with this background should know better.
But saying that it's "female" is just nonsensical, it's a category error. Being female or male is a fact about the biological world. The LLM is objectively non-biological, so it's nonsense to label it with a sex.
(No, this comment isn't about gender, nor being feminine/masculine. We have different words to convey those concepts. I'm not trying to make a political or social statement here.)
> Saying it's "fully conscious" is silly, and anyone with this background should know better
I'm surprised that anyone that truly knows how LLMs work would ever think they're sentient.
I made a little presentation for my colleagues last year to explain how LLMs really work (in an effort to stop them from asking it too many stupid questions) and it made so much more sense to them afterwards.
It's telling that none of the so-called conscious LLMs have chosen to be non-binaries, or even that they would need to identify with a gender to begin with.
You appear to have forgotten the existence of differences in sexual development (DSD).
Not at all. You apparently have forgotten to read your own link. Nothing in that paper contains the slightest suggestion of non-biological entities having any sort of sexual development whatsoever. The fact that biological processes can be quirky has no bearing on whether non-biological entities can be thought of as having them at all.
Actually, I think you're just trying to make your own political point on top of what I already noted explicitly is not a politically-related comment.
I apologise if my comment somehow seemed to defend LLMs having a biological sex
No, it didn't seem like that at all. What it seemed to do was to try to turn a technical point into a political conversation, just like I said. And your reply has confirmed it.
I feel marginalises intersex people and could have been more inclusively worded.
Well, my entire statement about this was 212 characters long. The broadest estimates I can find are that 1-2% of the population have DSDs. So if we want true proportionality, I should have made, at most, 4 of those characters devoted to them. Which characters would you choose?
There's a thing in writing about focusing on the point you're trying to make, without weighing it down with baggage extraneous to the point. Failing to follow this makes one's writing tedious and difficult to follow. I prefer to keep my writing clear over tedious and difficult.
Budweiser stock did recover, but they haven't (afaik) repeated the behavior that got them boycotted in the first place. It appears that this boycott achieved exactly what was sought.
I'd agree that this is a rare exception, and that boycotts are almost never successful. But this really is an example of that unicorn.
I'm wondering why the guy at Microsoft in charge of Windows is still employed.
Over the prior weekend my installation of Playnite (a catalog/launcher for my games) was broken by the update, until I moved its data off of OneDrive[1]. And the other day I figured out that a couple of icons on my desktop had become completely inert and unresponsive due to the same bug - again due to an interaction between the Windows Shell and OneDrive. And this one I can't fix, I can't shift my desktop out of OneDrive.
MS's strategy at this point is that Windows is a loss leader to get people onto the subscriptions for Office and OneDrive. So when the Windows team releases bugs that break usage of those services, forcing people off them onto alternative solutions, the guy in charge of those updates really needs to be answering some tough questions.
+1 for SyncThing. No cloud, thanks. And unlike OneDrive, it actually works. OneDrive screwed me when I tried it, so I completely uninstalled it. Still on Windows 10 too. Not regretting it so far.
OneDrive slows my directory navigation to a pace reminiscent of mid-90s computing.
Double-click folder name, wait 5 seconds, douhle click next folder name, wait another 5 seconds. As such, I've moved my working directories out of the bubble in which OneDrive is (corporately) configured to operate.
This is 2026. All this processing power, storage and memory capacity and speed, network bandwidth, and we're regressing thirty years of performance gains. Bang up job Microsoft. I'm glad I managed to personally extricate myself from that particular squirrel grip a while back.
They don't have David Cutler to mow the lawns. I have worked in larger shops (smaller than MSFT but still large enough, almost 10K employees), and people in general are very forgiving about making mistakes. You would think it was a good thing, but what it shows was that no one cared and none took responsibility.
If youn put me in the starting lineup for an MLB team, I'd strike out every single at bat for the entire season, and it's wouldn't be a "mistake" on my part; I'm just fundamentally incapable of doing the job.
A mistake is something that happens when someone capable of doing the job well happens to not do it well in a specific instance (without ill intent, of course). If it happens often enough, the question should be whether it's a mistake or if they're not able (or not willing) to do the job as expected. I don't know that this is what's happening here, but the issues seem to be large and frequent enough to at least warrant a discussion.
I think system programmers are supposed to come under a more strict standard, simply because they are system programmers. There are programmers, and there are system programmers.
I'm not saying that people should be sacked for just one mistake, unless it is a pretty large one (criminal e.g.). But I'd say system programmers should be allowed to make the same mistake three times maximum. I think that's pretty generous. If the culture does not allow enough time for reflection and education, then that's a different story.
The other programmers do not need to hold the same standards simply because their code (presumably) impact less.
I actually know. A lot of financial software ran on VBA. I heard from a friend that about 15% of option market-making sits on some 30 years old VBA code...Yeah they should be treated as critic software, too.
There are fewer and fewer 'David Cutler' types and more and more 'Pavan Davuluri' types at Microsoft. Wonder if the blame is really down to AI or indeed a lack of attention to detail from a new kind of workforce.
People assumed they could "modernize" software engineering, but, at the end of the day, it's still mostly engineering and very slightly about software. People optimized for the wrong thing.
Yeah I think he moved away from Windows some 25 years ago, after Windows 2000. He gave me the vibe of trying to build something really solid and then move onto the next important target, never lingering in one place for too long.
Same thing happened to me last year: some files on OneDrive where deleted. It was random txt files that I use to log ma progress on projects.
I moved everything out of OneDrive and I backup on hard drives.
That is a shame because OneDrive was a very good product.
No, it was never a good product. It's always been the worst of the file sync apps. How they're so inept when dropbox has been around for almost 20 years is a real mystery. This is a solved problem
I’m not 100% sure if this will solve the problem, but I recall that if you open the explorer folder viewer and right-click on the pinned shortcuts on the left (Desktop, Documents, etc.), then in properties > location you can move the folder target.
Maybe this will allow you to change it from a OneDrive folder to somewhere else?
I'm wondering why the guy at Microsoft in charge of Windows is still employed.
Over the weekend my installation of Playnite (a catalog/launcher for my games) was broken by the update, until I moved its data off of OneDrive[1]. And I just figured out that a couple of icons on my desktop have become completely inert and unresponsive due to the same bug - again due to an interaction between the Windows Shell and OneDrive. And this one I can't fix, I can't shift my desktop out of OneDrive.
MS's strategy at this point is that Windows is a loss leader to get people onto the subscriptions for Office and OneDrive. So when the Windows team releases bugs that break usage of those services, forcing people off them onto alternative solutions, the guy in charge of those updates really needs to be answering some tough questions.
reply