Systemically nigh impossible due to spoilering effect, wasted votes, gerrymandering and so on under FPTP. Even then all would happen is the new party replacing on of the existing ones and still stuck with two party system.

YouTube, cgpgrey, animal Kingdom votes videos.

Main issue comes from GDPR. When one uses the consent basis for collecting and using information it has to be a free choice. Thus one can't offer "Pay us and we collect less information about you". Hence "pay or consent" is blatantly illegal. Showing ads in generic? You don't need consent. That consent is "I vote with my browser address bar". Thing just is nobody anymore wants to use non tracked ads.....

So in this case DMA 5(2) is just basically re-enforcement and emphasis of previous GDPR principle. from verge

“exercise their right to freely consent to the combination of their personal data.”

from the regulation

2. The gatekeeper shall not do any of the following:
   (a) process, for the purpose of providing online advertising services, personal data of end users using services of third parties that make use of core platform services of the gatekeeper;
   (b) combine personal data from the relevant core platform service with personal data from any further core platform services or from any other services provided by the gatekeeper or with personal data from third-party services;
   (c) cross-use personal data from the relevant core platform service in other services provided separately by the gatekeeper, including other core platform services, and vice versa; and
   (d) sign in end users to other services of the gatekeeper in order to combine personal data,

unless the end user has been presented with the specific choice and has given consent within the meaning of Article 4, point (11), and Article 7 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679.

surprise 2016/679 is..... GDPR. So yeah it's new violation, but pretty much it is "Gatekeepers are under extra additional scrutiny for GDPR stuff. You violate, we can charge you for both GDPR and DMA violation, plus with some extra rules and explicity for DMA".

I think technically already GDPR bans combining without permission, since GDPR demands permission for every use case for consent based processing. There must be consent for processing.... combining is processing, needs consent. However this is interpretation of the general principle of GDPR. It's just that DMA makes it explicit "oh these specific processing, yeah these are processing that need consent per GDPR". Plus it also rules them out of trying to argue "justified interest" legal basis of processing case of the business. Explicitly ruling "these type of processing don't fall under justified interest for these companies, these are only and explicitly per consent type actions".

Yeah. That is text book contempt of court, you can throw people in jail or give a fine for that.

edit: Like that is the whole point of the gag order. Stop talking about this or face consequences upon insisting on continuing. Without the face consequences part the gag order is meaningless plea for good behavior. You can do that personally just with "would you please not talk about this" by the judge. When one is issuing gag the whole point is "we don't believe you keep mouth shut on your own accord so we have to enforce it with pain of punishment".

The lead is buried in the article

During the meeting, Putin said he offered Prigozhin the option to allow Wagner fighters to continue to serve in Ukraine under the leadership of their battlefield commander, Andrey Trochev.

“All of them could gather in one place and continue to serve,” Putin told Kolesnikov, who has covered the Kremlin leader for several decades. “And nothing would change for them. They would be led by the same person who had been their actual commander this entire time.”

The offer met with some support from the Wagner commanders, Putin said. “A lot of them nodded their heads when I said this. But Prigozhin, who was sitting in front of them and didn’t see [their reaction], said: ‘No, the guys won’t agree with that decision.’”

The interview appears to be part of a broader effort by the Kremlin to win the loyalty of the Wagner rank and file, even while seeking to discredit Prigozhin by leaking sensitive and embarrassing information about him.

During the interview, Putin also said Wagner did not exist, citing Russian legislation outlawing private military companies and putting its future in doubt.

Dara Massicot, a senior policy researcher at Rand, a US thinktank, who specialises in Russian military strategy, said Putin’s version of events signalled he could outlaw Wagner at any moment while seeking to drive a wedge between Prigozhin and his fighters.

emphasis mine. Now it is kinda a show of weakness. He is having to court the fighters, instead being confident in their loyalty to simple order. However after that explanation it makes sense, more than the headline would first give reason to. Plus finally of course... trust zero on the truthfulness to any Kremlin statements information. However what is truthful, they are trying to achieve something with the statement, even if they would be lying through their teeth. There was a reason for the messaging.

honestly Guardian should have lead with title or at least first lead message of "Putin is trying to drive wedge between Prigozhin and Wagner, new interview shows" or something like that.

Don't threaten us with good time, Elon.

Also no way he is going through. He is way too much in financial hole to give up European market. Like Google or Meta, sure they have the financial standing to maybe pull such move and survive.

Xitter? They need every visitor and account they can have globally to even think about staying viable.

Empty bluster and pointless empty bluster, since EU would just go "fine. Our continental economy or prosperity doesn't depend on your social media company. Social media isn't a critical industry, so we are just fine with you leaving. Plus there is 10 others like you anyway".

You can't threaten people with something that doesn't damage them and heck might be seen as benefit.

Well many adblockers can be clever enough to load the asset, but then just drop it. As in yeah the ad image got downloaded to browser, but then the page content got edited to drop the display of the add or turn it to not shown asset in css.

This is age old battle. Site owners go you must do X or no media. However then ad blocker just goes "sure we do that, but then we just ghost the ad to the user".

Some script needs to be loaded, that would display the ad? All the parts of the script get executed and.... then CSS intervention just ghosts the ad that should be playing and so on.

Since the browser and extension are in ultimate control. As said the actual add video might be technically "playing" in the background going through motions, but it's a no show, no audio player.... ergo in practice the ad was blocked, while technically completely executed.

Hence why they want to scan for the software, since only way they can be sure ad will be shown is by verifying a known adhering to showing the ad software stack.

Well EU says that is not allowed, because privacy. Ergo the adblocker prevention is playing a losing battle. Whatever they do on the "make sure ad is shown" side, adblocker maker will just implement counter move.

Which is the key problem. Everyone is a "responsible gun owner" and "good guy with a gun"...... until sometimes they suddenly aren't anymore. At which point your protection is what was person able to keep under normal circumstances aka what they had in their possession on the moment they had a mental snap.

Was it a semi-auto shoot as fast as your finger pulls rifle with potentially hundreds of rounds in quick swap magazines or do they have a manual action hunting rifle or shotgun with fixed magazine, that need to be manually reloaded.

Do they have a pistol with again potentially hundreds of rounds of quick reload ammunition or don't or maybe a target pistol with fixed magazine.

That is why places around the world have magazine and type restrictions, since they exactly know "checking backgrounds isn't fool proof and now amount of background checking helps again sudden newly emerging situation after the checks have been done".

Sure that 5 round moose hunting rifle will absolutely wreck say those 5 people, but one can't exactly run amock shooting around endlessly with moose rifle. Damage limitation. 5 dead people is better situation, than 22 dead people. As cold calculating as that is.

However this isn't about your anecdotal experience. This is about what level of service they can guarantee as minimum and overall to meet the conditions of the subsidy.

I would also note this isn't reinstatement matter. FCC refused to give them the subsidy in the first place with this decision. What SpaceX are trying to spin as reneg on previous decision is them making the short list of companies to be considered. Well, getting short listed is not same as being selected fully.

They passed the criterion for the short list check, but the final authorization and selection included more wide and more through checking on the promises of companies to meet criterion and SpaceX failed the more through final round of scrutiny before being awarded the subsidy.

Government having awarded bad money previously isn't fixed by following up bad awards with more bad awards. SpaceX exactly failed since previously money was handed out too losely and FCC has tightened the scrutiny on subsidy awards to not follow up bad money with more bad money.

Nobody is prevented from buying Starlink, this just means Starlink isn't getting subsidized with tax payer money.

Newer ever take Klarnas word for anything. They are the fine and Dandy company whose business model involved by routine fishing for customers bank authorization credentials.

half the time hallucinating something crazy in the in the mix.

Another funny: Yeah, it's perfect we just need to solve this small problem of it hallucinating.

Ahemm..... solving hallucinating is the "no it actually has to understand what it is doing" part aka the actual intelligence. The actually big and hard problem. The actual understanding of what it is asked to do and what solutions to that ask are sane, rational and workable. Understanding the problem and understanding the answer, excluding wrong answers. Actual analysis, understanding and intelligence.

Not really. Heat pump is not creating heat unlike resistive heater. It's just transporting it. One must remember even though freezing temperatures are cold for humans, for physics and universe those are still relatively high temperature environment. After all 0 Celsius is 273 positive Kelvin degrees. So that is 273 Kelvin forth of heat to pump around. Well say in -30C, still 243 K worth of heat to pump around. So the issue isn't is there heat, the issue is the practical mechanical and thermodynamic realities of he pumping. Which in practice comes down to can you find suitable refrigerants with suitable phase change characteristics to pump around.

Which for normal ambient temperatures on Earth is "yes". Just usually matter of how high pressures one has to use and other nasty features of the materials. For example recently even just CO2 has been started to use more again, issue with it mostly being it has to operate at higher pressures than more traditionally used refrigerants. They just don't call it CO2 in the bizz, it's refrigerant fluid R744. That works down to -56.6 Celcius given its triple point temperature. So it won't heat one in antarctic -80C winter, but for most of Earth even in cold climates -56.6 C is plenty. Problem just is it has to always work under high pressure, since in ambient pressures CO2 just sublimated from solid to gas. Pumping around solid blocks of dry ice isn't very convient for continuous heat exchange process machine.

Which adds some cost to the pump components. On the other hand... CO2 is pretty darn harmless. As long as concentration locally isn't too high, humans, animals and plants are perfectly used to handling the gas they exhale. It is non flammable, it is green house gas, but it is green house gas we naturally exhale. Some unit leaking it doesn't change much, since usually CO2 for industrial use is extracted from waste product gas, that would end up in air anyway.

Plus on need be it can be distilled from air, it's just energy intensive. Which is why "carbon capture" isn't a bigger thing. We know how to do carbon capture. It's just energy intensive and thus on climate impacting massive scale energy prohibitive.

Additional fun fact: Radio towers anchored to ground are also dodge obligation free and are able cover the supplementary mobile and wireless communications needs to complement the wired connections for cases of not being able use wires.

😀

More like he knows Lucian Grieves of the Satanic Temple has already prefilled a letter with his lawyer friend to have St. Lucifer's Preparatory Academy financed by Oklahoma state funds. Just waiting for the Catholic funding to be upheld and the letter gets mailed. Along with affidavit from a local Oklahoma Satanist who is absolutely enthusiastic about having their child schooled at St. Lucifers.

Like protestant vs Catholic is least of their problems. They have to finance a Wiccan Coven school, Muslim masrada, scientologist school, a norse Viking academy and so on.

Since as the rule goes: can't start making rulings on which religions are in and which are out.

Technique 1, click baity titles like "10 things you absolutely need to know about x"

Well he never won in the first place. This is the original final decision of him losing in the first place. What was "won" previously was SpaceX getting short listed as one of the companies to be seriously considered for award. Then followed the actual final full decision checks and SpaceX failed to meet criterion for the subsidy.

Well as per article yes, but 600$ is the reporting limit. If Ticketmaster, stubhub and so on has a reseller account with sales income of more than 600$ per year, they have to file it to IRS. Whether its single sale or thousands of separate small sales doesn't matter.

Completely normal tax procedure. Pretty much all big such platforms of various fields stock exchanges, commodity markets etc. have such obligation ledges on them for avoidance of tax evasion.

Nor as second note is anyone being "punished". Punishing is what happens on breaking law. This is business taxes, you make profits selling stuff, income taxes start applying. Normal cost of doing business in society for the services society provides (national military keeps the Mongol horde from wrecking your business and so on, transport atluthority builds roads to run business trucks on so the music tour entourage can get to the arena, so one can sell tickets to that conce for profit and son on).

Not how it works. GDPR gives DPA powers to for example order deletion of all of the iris data for not having being collected with proper consent and at that point operator bleeding "but it breaks our system" doesn't cut it. If it breaks the system, then it breaks their system. They should have thought about that before starting collecting data without proper consent.

Plus on top of Fines, GDPR gives DPAs some investigative powers and power to ask police assistance to enforce their orders. They might come and confiscate servers or shut them down personally, if the organization refuses to comply on their own.

Only business they can make is the little they do before the hammer falls and as said after that they can't claim and keep PII or any derivative data they have collected. The data has been poisoned with non-compliance. It will be ordered to be deleted, since the processor has no right possess it let alone process it. Any money they make will probably end up spent on paying fines.

It is non starter, specially their "you can't ask us to delete it". The most severe category of infractions of GDPR are exactly datasubject rights violations. Those are deemed more serious, then say failures of data breach and security. Since those infractions violate the corner stone data subject rights, which again are extension or specific application of the fundamental human right of right to privacy.

DPA will just say "if your organization/business/operation model is based on carte balance refusal to offer right of deletion while operating on legal basis of consent, your operations model is fundamentally incompatible with the laws of EU. More simply put, it is fundamentally illegal for you to operate in EU. Shutdown your operation immediately and permanently."

Also there is no free consent, if it cannot be withdrawn. Again part which is "I withdraw my consent for you to possess and process my information, I want nothing to do with you anymore. Delete everything". There is no free consent without the possibility to have ones data deleted. You can't claim legal basis of consent and then say that consent includes consenting to have ones data never deleted. Infact judge would invalidate such consent even from the data subjects side. You can't consent to relinguis core data subject rights. Those are mandatory minimal terms, legal right. You have them, want it you or not and cannot relinquish them.one can choose to never apply those right one has, but it doesn't remove them still existing or one giving them up.

This will get banned, since their operating model is fundamentally incompatible. That or they have to change their model to a compatible one. Which would mean re-engineering their whole operating concept and technology.

Well battery shapes will be custom, but the regulation does include demand to offer said batteries as spare parts.

shall ensure that those batteries are available as spare parts of the equipment that they power for a minimum of five years after placing the last unit of the equipment model on the market, with a reasonable and non-discriminatory price for independent professionals and end-users.

This being EU, EU will actually even police that reasonability clause via consumer protection agencies. You might not like the still probably pretty hefty price, but outright monopoly price gouging will not be allowed. Atleast not with in EU jurisdiction. Also makers will tend to gravitate to number of pretty standard battery sizes and geometries. Simply out of economies of scale. If you have to offer the batteries available as spares. You don't want to offer 150 different battery models on you warehousing and supply to your retail stores. You want as few as possible. Maybe say 5 different sizes or maybe couple ten different kinds on the biggest makers with the largest product range. Cheaper to buy more of similar batteries from battery supplier, than have custom module developed for each new phone model. Well unless one is apple and only has couple new models per year. They probably will have now just little bit different optimized shape battery for each models, but they also have the scale per model to make sense for that.

also:

Software shall not be used to impede the replacement of a portable battery or LMT battery, or of their key components, with another compatible battery or key components.

Meaning companies can't use software locks to deny third party batteries. Since the language says compatible battery, not replacement battery. Which wouldn't make sense anyway, since replacement battery would be the one the OEM offers. Ofcourse I'm sure there will be lot of hurdur by makers over "don't use third party batteries, those aren't as safe" and "well but that isn't compatible". However as one remembers during the early 2000's and upto mid 2010's there was a very healthy both OEM and third party replacement battery market. As with that experience, yes shoddy batteries from non-reputable people can be problem. However in this basic consumer electronic safety regulation (aka you can't just shovel anything to the market with utterly nuts unsafe circuitry in the first place) and the market itself handles it. Again it will be found out over little time, which makers are the reputable ones with the good batteries with all the proper safeties and good production quality. Reputable big chain electronics dealers then focus on only offering the established reputable third party batteries and parts out of their own reputation (You sold me a shoddy battery. It burst and ruined my phone. I'm never buying from this phone store ever again). Plus same with the actual makers with stuff like offering extensive warranties, warranting the replacement of the device, if their battery messes it up and so on.

This is all "we have already been here" ground except instead of the T9 numpad on the phone front, there is now a whole front covering touch screen on it's place.

He is successful enough, old enough and made enough money, that he can just retire. Threatening him is an empty threat. He is 60 and probably given his long career earned more than he can spend in rest of his life, unless he goes super yacht and private jet crazy.

The whole show was a come back from retirement essentially. A voluntary indulgence on his part. Surely lucrative indulgence, but indulgence still. Apple needed him, he didn't need Apple.

Most of the crew probably will leave for other project with a letter of recommendation from John in their pocket.

Issue isn't Russia reaping them. It never is with cluster munitions. In fact given the battle field is Ukraine, it will be Ukrainian civilians repair the harvest on this. Problem isn't "ohhhh cluster munitions are nasty to enemy soldiers". No those are free target, we rip them, tear them. Huge 155 mm shrapnel HE shell will tear flesh just as nastily as a cluster sub munitions, if not worse even.

The issue is submunitions in effect ending up being anti-personnel mines, since not all of the submunitions detonate properly and then end up teetering on their fuse and then some civilian stumbles upon them later, knocks it and boom, there goes civilians hand/leg/life.

All munitions have a fault percent of not detonating (fuses fail, the safety self-destructs fail). Issue is cluster sub munitions are small and there is lot of them.

It is pretty obvious should there be 155 mm dud HE shell sticking from the field soil. sub munitions, not so much. It's a small hand grenade sized thing.

Then again not like the "very shoot ourselves in the foot, but just little bit, instead of lot" on decades long repeat leads to anything good.

If ones vote is to be taken for granted, you have no power. Only way you can hold your own side accountable is by threatening to withhold the vote.

That is bargaining. Voting Democrat nomatter what and after that asking could they please do something, that is begging. Begging rarely works as well as bargaining.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Joys of two party system.

Most likely people just get apathy and instead of flipping to Trump, they simply stay home. Which is the other bargain. What you offer for me to bother to go from my home to the voting station in the first place.

That is their play "you can't take us for granted anymore, we care about our vote and bargaining power on long term enough to suffer on short term to buy long term relevance".

Whether it works is different matter. I don't know, if democratic leadership has the where with all to take their left flank of voters as anything but given serval supporters to be kept in line with "but we are only little bit bad, those guys are really really bad".

Well sure there is use cases for satellites like ocean and sea going ships, remote ocean island and antarctic research stations. However "small village in rural, but mainland USA" is not one of those to me. It could be handled by radio towers and wired links. If only the political and resource priority was there. It is far more permanent and sustainable infrastructure choice, than "we have to keep blasting space rocket very 5 years to keep this towns internet going. If they stop blasting the rockets, we lose the internets."

Same applies to pretty much all mainland and all communities outside of something like deep jungle and deep siberia. I come from Finland. Finnish Lapland is not exactly hive of population density, but still couple hundred people villages and just summer cottages have mobile internet cell coverage. I remember when it wasn't so. There was time, when dial up and satellite internet via geostationary was a thing in 1990's and early 2000's. It all fell out with the spread of cell networks. Who in their right mind would compete with "20€/month, you get 5G/4G internet. Unlimited data, 100Megs speed", heck 50€ per month as much you can eat and 5G can deliver 1G service mobile cell network with constant satellite launching. putting up towers with microwave links isn't that expensive. I streamed Netflix at family summer cottage in Lapland.

The "but vast distances" is empty argument. Is USA way vast to Finland.... yeah, but there is also 300 million people compared to 5 million to pay for it all. . Problem in say USA isn't vast distances or small population density. It is that mobile carriers are run as regional monopolies without sufficient monopoly controls of "no you have to serve also that town there, you have to serve that ranch there. You are utility company using the public good of shared radio spectrum slots. Sure you paid license for it, but those are limited resource. Even the paid for radio slots come with obligations. Electric utility has minimum service obligations, now you telecoms are new electricity, here is demands for minimum service obligations. In this county you have sought to have under your coverage, you provide radio coverage for every permanent residence. Including that farm. Don't like it? You are free to relinquish your temporary license for exploitation of common good resource and we will find someone who will do same business with acceptable to us terms.... Oh would you look at that, seems to be like 5 companies in queue there at the door."

Do the Finnish mobile operators like they have service obligations in certain regions to cover even low density areas as private profit seeking business? Noooo, but ahemmm they are still making profits. Do they like they have to offer roaming under fair terms to competitors to avoid every operator having to put their own mast for every last village? Probably not. They are still making profits. They fullfill their minimum service obligations and play by the roaming and competition rules, government leaves them alone to run their business.

Yeah. the one good use I see is reefer trailers. Since some times they have to sit long times, with still the coolers running to keep the cargo within demanded thermal limits to keep the cold chain uninterrupted.

Most cooling is obviously needed when it is hot... so in summer and thus sung light time. So the panels would probably nicely run the coolers instead of having a fuel burning generator keeping the coolers going.

During winter, when there is no light. Well it's probably cold enough ambient the reefer isn't using lot of cooling anyway.

in specific applications. not all calculations are suitable for quantum computation.

Whatever it is called with that kind of caffeine content you warning label it with listing of exactly how much caffeine it has. Well maybe unless it is named literally "coffee" and is plain brewed coffee and at that brewed coffee with the normal levels of caffeine coffee contains.

Ones frappe, whippazino also better have needed labels in cases, since given all they mix how the heck one is to know what exactly is the contents. Oh this is extra special "angry frappe" with double squared shot expresso, so exactly how much caffeine is that dear seller per one glass? I just thought you put chili in it or something to make it "angry", but has literally multiple times more caffeine content.

This is why all the energy drinks atleast where I live have the ever present "contains high amount of caffeine x mg/100ml".

You sell something like that as counter served item with no packaging label to read, well now your menu list must contains at minimum highlights. Something like "our special drunk (HC)" and then somewhere on the menu there reads "HC means high in caffeine". Then obviously at the counter must be a full labeling booklet of "here is our every product from the plainest brewed coffee to our jumbo mega sandwich and special brew beverage with full nutritional information and ingredients"

Just like one can't sell say a pastry in cafe with nut creme filling with out having a big marker on all the menus "contains nuts, nut allergies bevare". Since similarly nut allergic consuming nuts can be life threatening, well for some people consuming caffeine isn't healthy and must be disclosed.

No, terrorism act being ruled out means police doesn't have evidence or even suspect a terrorism motive. There is no separate "terrorism" singular statute for violent crimes. Rather Finland handles this by having qualifier for list of crimes of "crime act done in terroristic intent". One of these is explosives crimes. Illegal possession and so on. Then going to stuff like "murder with terroristic intent" and so on. Only real pure terrorism crimes are stuff like "leading a terrorist group", "training for terroristic group" and so on organizational crimes.

What specifying in article means is police has told they have no indication of terroristic purpose/motive and thus the investigation will start regarding just "plain" explosives crimes, instead of starting investigation on "explosives crimes with terroristic intent". Basically initial show doesn't show anything related to terrorism. The amount of explosives is itself irrelevant. Since the whole thing about the Finnish terrorism statute is about the motive and purpose, not the means.

You could blow some single person with a whole metric ton of explosives and not be charged with terrorism. If you did it for say as crime of passion since they were having an affair with your spouse, that isn't a terroristic murder with explosives. It's just plain murder for personal reasons, just way over the top amount of explosives. You probably would get charged with public endangerment againt since that is awful big explosion and so on. However again.... you didn't endanger public for terroristic purposes so no terroristic crime label. You did it rather out of not caring/stupidity and so on.

Also I would point out as result of couple big European wars and having a pretty sizeable mining industry, even large amount of explosives might be accessible to certain people. Which is why on the other hand authorities really take dim view on explosives crimes. He might not be suspected of terrorism, but I would think the person will get book thrown at them (as much as anyone gets book thrown at them in Finland) to make example. Prosecutor will must likely seek maximum jail sentence for that kind of pile of illegal explosives (whatever they were before, they certainly are illegal upon being put upon some randos car boot, which is not a legal way to store 12 kg of dynamite). Probably aggravated explosives crime at that again given it's 12 kg of dynamite. You can make awful big crater with that amount.

Also I would at while police is at the moment ruling out terrorism, it isn't a court judgement. They are allowed to change their mind, should they find evidence making them suspect terroristic purpose. It has happened before. For example the last right wing terrorism case actually started like that. They found a stash of firearms and explosives. However first those were being suspected to be tied to drugs crimes and were found related to a drug bust investigation. So the investigation didn't start as terroristic. However after couple home searches related to that investigation were done, police found evidence suggesting terroristic purpose. This lead to the crimes classification changing to firearms crimes and explosives crimes to firearms crimes with terroristic intent and explosives crimes with terroristic intent. Plus on top as I remember preparing a terroristic act and so on. They were caught before they actually carried out an strike with their stash.

I get the "but different states sales taxes thing", for national advert. However even then, just make them present example price

Get the new Moborola Bazer, only 549 dollars*
* price example for Buffalo new York, including taxes and fees

Since if one is going with "well the final price you pay might not be what was advertised", make it be more representative and real. Yeah the final price might be different sometimes even lower depending on your local taxes compared to the example prices calculation locations taxes.

Local advertising or on the shelf prices? There is no excuse, you are selling in that location. You know what the taxes and fees are just add them in. Any rare special discount and discrepancy cases, well the people eligible for those know to expect the difference.

Well some sneaky legislative aide in EU already thought about that.

Any natural or legal person that places on the market products incorporating portable batteries or LMT batteries shall ensure that those batteries are available as spare parts of the equipment that they power for a minimum of five years after placing the last unit of the equipment model on the market, with a reasonable and non-discriminatory price for independent professionals and end-users.

Software shall not be used to impede the replacement of a portable battery or LMT battery, or of their key components, with another compatible battery or key components.

Ehhhh. 2016, the year of an open no-incumbent primary? That is not called division, that is called primary democracy working as supposed. Primary is exactly the time, when party membership is under no obligation to show unity. That only needs to happen during the national election stage.

Also just due to winning primary one isn't as candidate free to ignore other candidate bases. Not out of any high ideals, but hard political reality. No voter is obligated to show up and voters are emotional beings. Slight them and they might stay home (which is the actual risk, instead of them voting for the other party).

It might be "self-harming", but again voters can be emotional instead of rational. One has to play to their actual psyche, instead of the idealistic perfect rational psyche one would want them to have. Atleast if one wants to win and shouldn't the aim of democratic party be win by near any means begging, promising the moon to its base, being as enthusiastic and energetic as possible for the national good of avoiding another Trump presidency.

People talk about electorates obligation to avoid another Trump presidency. What about DNCs obligation to go above and beyond to avoid another Trump presidency.

Which is easier to change? The collective psyche layout of 300 million people or one party's campaign program and political agenda? It's easier to fix the candidate/candidates program to match the electorate, rather than fix the electorate to match the candidate.

So if there is "division" among party base, it is the candidates and party programs job to move to match, cover and repair the cracks. Not out of high ideals, but since that is the one practically fast enough way to fix the issue. Base isn't going to suddenly change their psyche and emotional state just, because DNC says to do so out of national good. Again emotional beings, not robotic, rational automatons.

There possibly is a pushers/braking truck attached to the rear of the Transporter.

Also one must remember on transporter it is about winning over rolling resistance rather than the weight. Doesn't necessarily take that powerfull truck on flat ground to pull even great load.

Also turbine housing has lot of air and as equipment to be lifted to top of a mast, built with light weight in mind. Not for pulling it, but in thought of the crane that has to lift that thing dead load up.

Oh you aren't getting it for free. You just pay for it to T-mobile, instead of directly to Netflix. Never yet heard of a company, that offers actual freebies. You just pay for it in the price of the other thing you are paying them for.

Buy glasses, get second pair for free... .... ... you pay price of two for one pair and aren't just very well aware how cheap eye glasses are to make these days.

It can be, depending on whether PII was involved. Just being publicly published doesn't make it not be PII. It can be or not be. GDPR counts PII widely, since it also includes stuff that can be combined with other information to make for identifying the person.

Frankly this is one of those cases, where we need a court ruling to set precedent on what is counted in and what is counted out.

Well mostly the flaw is people assigning the test abilities it was never intended. Like testing intelligence. Turing outright as first thing in the paper presenting "imitation game" noted moving away from testing intelligence, since he didn't know to do that. Even on the realm of "testing intelligent kind of behavior" well more like human like behavior and human being here proxy for intelligent, it was mostly an academic research idea. Not a concrete test meant to be some milestone.

If the meaning of the words ‘machine’ and ‘think’ are to be found by examining how they are commonly useit is difficult to escape the conclusion that the meaning and the answer to the question, ‘Can machines think?’ is to be sought in a statistical survey such as a Gallup poll. But this is absurd. Instead of attempting such a definition I shall replace the question by another, which is closely related to it and is expressed in relatively unambiguous words.

Turing wanted a way to step away from stuff like "thinking" and "intelligence" directly and then proposed "imitation game" mostly to the rest of the academia as way to develop computer systemics more towards "intelligent behavior". It was mostly like "hey we need some goal to have as a goal to have something to move towards with these intelligence things. This isn't intelligence, but it might be usefull goal or tool for development work". Since without some goal/project/aim to have project don't advance. So it was "how about we try to develop a thing, that can beat this imitation game. Wouldn't that be good stepping stone. Then we can move to the actual serious stuff. Just an idea".

However since this academic "thinking out aloud spitballing ideas" was uttered by the Alan Turing, it became the Turing Test and everyone started taking it way too seriously. Specially outside academia. Who yes did play the imitation game with their programs as it was intended as research and development tool.

exemplified by for example this little exerpt of "not trying to do anything too complete and ground breaking here":

In any case there is no intention to investigate here the theory of the game, and it will be assumed that the best strategy is to try to provide answers that would naturally be given by a man

It is pretty literally "I had a thought". Turin makes no claims of machine beating the game having any significance other than "machine beat this game I came up with, neat". There is no argument of if machine beats imitation game, then X or then it means Y is reached.

Rest of the paper is actually about objections to the core idea of "it could ever be possible for machine to think" and even as such said imitation game is kinda lead in or introduction to Turing's treatise various objections of various "it would be impossible for machine to think" arguments. Starting with theological argument of "only human soul can think. Hence no animal or machine can think." .... since it was 1950's.

Nor does it remove it from being a war crime. Just being indifferent to whether one hits civilians or not is a war crime. The bar is one has to concern oneself actively with considering how to minimise civilian casualties.

Oh no, poor Apple having to do a redesign. How can they ever afford that with their billions.

Specially in say foggy conditions and little bit distance. At which point you won't clearly maybe differentiate individual elements and more like that's the rear and "block of light in middle, left and right". At which point it all little blending one might infact be under impression "the light intensity lowered at the rear, huh, not braking then, did they have they parking break dragging they released or something.... ohhhjj shuiiiiiit no it is braking hard".

My two cents from here north of Europe and land of snow, rain, fog and occasional white out conditions.

Nah. He is also known for instant turns, when he thinks he has bargained enough or when it happens to suit the image he wants to present.

For example say he decided "Vilnius is the moment I stop bargaining, but only at last minute. Lets see what concessions I can get out of them until then" or so on.

It is exactly on brand for Erdogan to suddenly turn his position and go "what problem, there is no problem. What I said last week there was a problem... no no no, I Erdogan The First have solved problem quickly in only few days. Yes we made a deal, I negotiated amazing deal, deal solves the problem. There is No problem anumore. It's solved."

What happened to solve the problem? Nothing, Erdogan just stopped insisting there was a problem in first place and well some flowery language on top to make it look like it was deal to end the problem and not a climb down to end the problem.

People always seem to forgot even two party system is not a two bucket zero sum game. There is always that third pseudo party around, the sleeping peoples party. Losing voters to sleeping peoples party is exactly as good way to lose the election as is losing voters directly to the main rival party.

One can also win an election, not by stealing voters from the rival, but from the sleeping peoples party.

Well depending on how they count was there a flip or are the ratios different since certain amount of people have moved to the "not likely voter" category. So instead of flip, there is apathy among democratic voters.

Since they say among black voters, not among black population. Those are two different things and it matters which is it. All voting eligible persons, regardless of likelihood to vote, or just likely voters.

Since voter/not voter is not a fixed grouping, there is constant movement over that line.

Well difference is you have to know coming to know did the AI produce what you actually wanted.

Anyone can read the letter and know did the AI hallucinate or actually produce what you wanted.

On code. It might produce code, that by first try does what you ask. However turns AI hallucinated a bug into the code for some edge or specialty case.

Hallucinating is not a minor hiccup or minor bug, it is fundamental feature of LLMs. Since it isn't actually smart. It is a stochastic requrgitator. It doesn't know what you asked or understand what it is actually doing. It is matching prompt patterns to output. With enough training patterns to match one statistically usually ends up about there. However this is not quaranteed. Thus the main weakness of the system. More good training data makes it more likely it more often produces good results. However for example for business critical stuff, you aren't interested did it get it about right the 99 other times. It 100% has to get it right, this one time. Since this code goes to a production business deployment.

I guess one can code comprehensive enough verified testing pattern including all the edge cases and with thay verify the result. However now you have just shifted the job. Instead of programmer programming the programming, you have programmer programming the very very comprehensive testing routines. Which can't be LLM done, since the whole point is the testing routines are there to check for the inherent unreliability of the LLM output.

It's a nice toy for someone wanting to make a quick and dirty test code (maybe) to do thing X. Then try to find out does this actually do what I asked or does it have unforeseen behavior. Since I don't know what the behavior of the code is designed to be. Since I didn't write the code. good for toying around and maybe for quick and dirty brainstorming. Not good enough for anything critical, that has to be guaranteed to work with promise of service contract and so on.

So what the future real big job will be is not prompt engineers, but quality assurance and testing engineers who have to be around to guard against hallucinating LLM/ similar AIs. Prompts can be gotten from anyone, what is harder is finding out did the prompt actually produced what it was supposed to produce.