This is the same tired anti-vax/eugenics rhetoric. Let the flu infect the whole flock and then just let the ones that survive continue to breed making the species stronger.
This is information coming from someone who has absolutely zero medical experience, but thinks that doctors have been looking at this whole thing wrong for the last century.
“Mr. Trump, we’re losing money because Canadian tourism is massively down. What should we do?”
“Let’s make coming to the US even less attractive. That’ll surely help”
LLMs are not peers. It should have no part in the peer review process.
You could make the argument that it’s just a tool that real peer reviewers use to help with the process, but if you do, you cant get mad that authors are shadow-prompting for a better chance it’ll be seen by a human.
Authors already consciously write their papers in ways that are likely to be approved by their peers, (using professional language, good data, and a standard structure) if the conditions for what makes a good paper changes, you can’t blame authors for adjusting to the new norms.
Either ban AI reviews entirely, or let authors try to game the system. You can’t have both.
I mean, there wasn’t an incredibly well documented, active genocide happening 8 years ago.
That has a lot of sway on public opinion.
Number pairs where the 1st and 3rd digit match or where the 2nd and 4th digit match.
Eg: 1315 or 4676
This will rely on having an executive team that can predict trends beyond the next quarter.
Doubling down on advertising, telemetry, and AI in an overly bloated OS looks really good if you only care about the profits that brings for the next 3 months, rather than how much your userbase resents it. MS is fully capable of turning this around immediately by just making LTSC available to the public without needing to buy a MAK through an enterprise channel, but that means throwing away some recurring revenue in favor of claiming a lost userbase
I’m not sure this will be an issue.
When a piece of software is checking for chain of trust, it’s done primarily for security or DRM reasons. The benefits of verifying this chain of trust would make it a little harder for cheaters to inject code and it would be an extra hurdle for pirates to overcome, but the cost is that everyone that bought your game with the intent of playing it on Linux now has absolutely no way to make that happen. I’m not sure the loss in ~4% of your sales would be worth the benefit.
I believe that’s just fear-mongering. This has been a thing that Microsoft has wanted to do for a while, largely because having 3rd party code with direct kernel access is a huge problem in terms of stability and security unless you can be sure you know what all that code is doing.
They tried to do this in the past, arguing that anything that wanted kernel-level access had to Windows API calls instead, however Windows Defender which was bundled with the OS was exempt from this restriction. The EU argued that it gave Microsoft a competitive advantage in the AV space and mandated that if they wanted to do this, they had to follow their own rules which MS was not willing to do.
Instead, Microsoft dictated that any code that was going to run in the kernel had to be submitted to Microsoft for review, who would then approve or deny the code for use. The problem with this method is that it’s slow, so any AV that wanted to update their engine had to go through a code review process every time. Crowdstrike (and likely every other AV provider) got around this by having a component of their software with kernel-access that could read in data dynamically. This is what caused that worldwide BSOD problem a couple years back. The Crowdstrike component with kernel access loaded in a bad update that was not properly reviewed and it broke every system with the AV installed.
Overall, this change is a good thing and will force software vendors to actually operate securely rather than just asking for ring 0 access when they don’t need it. As always, if you’re worried about the changes MS is making, Linux is available and getting better day by day.
What if the play field is the whole leg and it’s O’s turn currently?
Edit: Then X wins regardless and I’m a dummy
This is a thing. It’s called Call Screening
Super Mario Bros (1993) is one of my favorite movies of all time.
It’s a bizarre mess of a film, full of counter-culture icons in a weird sci-fi dystopian setting. Despite being objectively awful, there isn’t another movie quite like it, and it’s a fun watch.
It’s a shame that the nightmarish production took such a heavy toll on everyone involved in the project because I’d like to see more screwball adaptations of things
Remember to drink a ton of water to replace everything you’re losing to the throne.
Last thing you want is to feel extra shitty due to dehydration when you’re already recovering
or just any other Islay scotch if you don’t smoke and don’t have an ashtray
There is something especially charming about genuine amateur art.
When you can tell exactly what they intended to depict, but couldn’t quite get there skill-wise adds something to the piece as a whole.
I love when people want to express some idea they had, so much that they’re willing to put themselves out there, even though they know that the final work is not as good as it could be. To say nothing of the separate joy of following an artist and watching their work improve with time.
Basically any sitcom made for TV and not a streaming service.
Honestly, Hackers gets a lot of shit for being ridiculous, but it only deserves it sometimes.
A lot of the actual hacking that is done in that movie is stuff like social engineering and phreaking payphones. It’s exaggerated in the movie to make it watchable, but it’s largely based in reality.
The Alberta premier. This concerns provincial politics, not federal.
As far as I can tell, Carney is not an anti-vaxxer
Man I love that we elected a vaccine sceptic as our premier.
Someone is trying to get an ally against India.
This issue has multiple facets and the answer changes depending on the end result you want.
The author of the article sees the problem as “Old games you bought on steam are unplayable on modern hardware”. Kaldaien sees the problem as “Steam cannot run on older hardware anymore, even if the games I bought still work there”. Both people want the same thing (To be able to play the games they bought) but are looking at it from different angles.
Ultimately, Steam is a DRM tool that has a very good storefront attached to it. If you want true ownership of the software, buy the game in a way that will let you run the software by itself. Valve expects that the overwhelming majority of its users will keep up with semi-modern hardware (In this case, a machine capable of running windows 10/SteamOS) which I don’t feel is is an unreasonable ask. However, expecting Valve to retain support for an OS that hit end of life 20 years ago is unreasonable.
I agree with the opinions of the article’s author. It would be far better to ensure that support for the old titles you bought is available on modern hardware rather than making sure Steam is still accessible on a PC running windows 98. This is one of those corner-cases where piracy is acceptable. You already paid for the game, you just need to jump through some hoops to play it on your 30 year old PC.