Not sure about that one but the following one:

In each language, the words for yes and no never change, regardless of which question they are answering.

This happens in Danish actually. Example:

Kan du lide is? (Do you like ice cream?)
Ja
Kan du ikke lide is? (Do you not like ice cream?)
Jo

So in Danish we have “ja” which means “yes” but “jo” is used instead when answering a negative question, so as to confirm what the negative question asked. This is kind of annoying in English cause if you ask “Do you not like ice cream?” then if you say “yes” does that mean “yes I like ice cream” or does it mean “yes I do not like ice cream”? That’s what “jo” disambiguates.

Tbf the flat buttonless style makes them really easy to clean.

Very well laid out. Biggest problem is that the people watching his channel are probably likely to already understand the problem. Certainly almost everyone here understands the problem. Preaching to the choir and all that.

Hopefully we can get more people to see it as an issue in the future.

m8 literally everyone on the fediverse is an outlier 😅

Am I the only one that feels it’s a bit strange to have such safeguards in an AI model? I know most models aren’t available online but some models are available to download and run locally right? So what prevents me from just doing that if I wanted to get around the safeguards? I guess maybe they’re just doing it so that they can’t be somehow held legally responsible for anything the AI model might say?

Source? Or is it just your impression?

Just be sure to find another job before quitting. Always easier to find a job when you already have one.

I honestly think they’d understand it about as much as they’d currently understand it - that is, not understanding it very much at all. So I think it would be about the same level of understanding but it would make a lot more sense and would be easier to calculate with.

It’d also remove a lot of incentives for squeezing your income/pension contribution to align with certain thresholds (i.e. tax bracket thresholds).

For example, a sigmoid function (click link for equation). You’d need to mess with the constants to align the function with a range of incomes but the general shape will be the same - a low, almost-zero taxation rate for those who earn the least, rising to a threshold (perhaps even 100%, but a lower value like 75% would probably work as well), giving a high taxation to those who earn the most.

I’m not speaking against progressive taxation, I’m saying the brackets should be continuous so there aren’t any sharp turns in taxation. Right now the brackets make the taxation discrete, but I feel it should be continuous.

A continuous bracket could be defined by a single equation. You’d plug in your income and you’d get out your taxation. No need to look up what bracket you are in.

Why? To me it’d be much more intuitive. I find brackets quite confusing

Never understood the idea of tax brackets. Why isn’t it just continuous? Computers are calculating the tax now anyway, not like it would be infeasible.

when people start unionizing, they just fire everyone

Yea this needs to be made illegal obviously. But that’s hard. And that’s where it becomes political. You can’t get around the fact that it is political unfortunately.

Of course it’s collective bargaining, that’s what I mean with “organize”. I don’t mean just organize within your workplace, I mean organize within entire fields and industries.

Friend, you don’t know how unions work at a core level.

This sounds kind of condescending and mean. In Denmark we have large unions that cover whole industries and fields and they work very well for collective bargaining and securing good levels of compensation, vacation and good work environments. I am myself a member of such a union. So please don’t assume that I don’t know how unions work.

Yea definitely don’t disagree with that. I think that is a factor too. But I think it also kind of goes hand in hand. Do you have similar ideas because you organized and kind of aligned your ideas, or did you organize because your ideas are similar and you easily agreed to organize? It’s kind of a chicken and egg thing.

I’ve also often thought that countries like the US are just too big. There’s too many people to take into consideration. A country like Denmark with ~6 million people is much easier to keep track of and the governance and politics is closer to reality.

It is about politics. You need to organise yourselves better into unions. Then, you strike until you get what you deserve.

Why does Denmark and the rest of the Nordic countries have so high quality of living and happy people? Cause the people realized that you need to work together to get what you want. You need to have solidarity with your other workers to push for better compensation and work environments.

Do this, or you’re doomed.

What do all you guys use these setups for?

Even if you could, Linus Torvalds is not a fan of the v3 license.

Why not?

The Free Software Foundation explicitly forbade tivoization in version 3 of the GNU General Public License. However, although version 3 has been adopted by many software projects, the authors of the Linux kernel have notably declined to move from version 2 to version 3.

How come Linux doesn’t use GPL v3?