Agreed. The problem is that people are used to do search, which returns hits from clearly identified sources. Suddenly, Gemini is interpreting your query and generating its own response. It's an entirely different product. If I expect to find a source, this was just wasted inference. It's especially problematic that the LLM result is the top result, since we all know how much that matters.
It's fine to have Gemini as an option, it's also fine to have a combined result page, that should just be something people are able to chose if they want that (even persistently if they want). It should just not be the default.
If it is not allowed to be used in the EU, it shouldn't be allowed to export it.
> Although these chemicals are not allowed on the EU market, they can still be exported from European Member States to third countries. From there, they can return to Europe as residues in imported food — a “toxic pesticides boomerang” that puts consumers at risk.
The term "blowback" has a lot of applications. For example in WW I, when chemical weapons were used and the wind changed, and you gassed your own troops.
This seems like a new economic-chemical place for the term to be used.
Surely that depends on the reason for the ban? Say it is banned in the EU because of concerns about secondary environmental impact, a different country with a different ecology could reasonably decide to keep using it.
Canadian lentils are sprinkled in glyphosate to kill them so they can be harvested (as the climate there doesn’t allow for this to occur naturally). They’re then harvested and shipped back to the EU where such a practice is forbidden. But it happened outside of the EU so it’s magically safe.
This is nothing new though. A small number of poor countries manufacture goods and mine materials in pretty terrible conditions that are illegal in the countries consuming those goods and resources.
> the misguided idea among some that as long as a dependency isn't through FFI, it doesn't count as a dependency, is one of the things I dislike the most about Rust culture
I have not heard that idea a single time. There's definitely the idea that FFI dependencies "count more" / add more baggage (because there's a bigger risk that the build fails, it's harder to investigate memory safety, ...). Absolutely not that a non-FFI dependency "does not count".
I very much prefer to work in Rust but it does force you to design things in an counter-intuitive way in certain situations (linked lists for the canonical example). Specially for lower level software I find C or C++ to allow for much more flexibility and thus the most straightforward design possible.
I really don't think Rust does, but that's if you're outright refusing to use `unsafe` anywhere. Might be a little noisier if you're using things like ManuallyDropped instead of just using raw pointers, but the language doesn't stop you from doing things in ways you would with C or C++, it encourages you to encapsulate the hard parts so you can worry less about correctness of 98% of your codebase, instead of fearing incorrect behaviors can silently sneak in.
That's absolutely correct. Wild to see it downvoted without explanation, while you preemptively mentioned the tradeoff that you do need to worry about correctness in that case (just as much as in C/C++), but that only applies to a small part of your codebase, so it's still a huge benefit.
The only downside is that unsafe rust is more verbose than C/C++.
However they are literally changing the rules of what "the entire market" means to include those companies sooner that they would have been when people bought those indices.
[meta] I was surprised this fell off the front page. The post has "131 points, 3 hours ago, 39 comments" and sits at rank 55. Number 2 on front page has "41 points, 4 hours ago, 0 comments". I don't want to assume something nefarious without reason, but that seems counterintuitive. Are there other parameters that can explain this ranking?
This has happened to a lot of stuff in the last couple months I've noticed. For me it's been mostly on bad news for Apple. I suspect it's something changed in the algorithm or people flagging rather than nefarious, but that's just my guess
If it's the algorithm, I'd be curious what other parameter it could be.
If it's people flagging, is there a good reason to do that? Otherwise, I would still call it nefarious behavior by people abusing the flagging mechanism in order to bury this story.
reply