There is a kind of naiveté, also at EU level, where people think that once it's a law, bad actors will just fold.

They minds are somehow unable to comprehend that only the good actors will fold and only bad actors will be left.

Other examples are: Firearms possession, supply chain law regarding human rights and child labor.

I was really excited for GDPR until I realized Europe had no intention of actually enforcing it :-(

Actually, southern europe seems to have understood that it can be quite a good business fining US megacorps billions and billions. Northern european countries do very little except symbolic wrist slapping.

Sure, but there were other provisions like machine-readability of exported data, etc. that could have been really helpful. I should be able to do a one-click export of my Spotify playlists and favourites (the music I like is personal info in my view) in to Qobuz, for instance.

"The data subject shall have the right to receive the personal data concerning him or her, which he or she has provided to a controller, in a structured, commonly used and machine-readable format and have the right to transmit those data to another controller without hindrance from the controller to which the personal data have been provided"

https://gdpr-library.com/article/20

Forgive my ignorance but aren't they already on huggingface?

I assumed turboquant optimizations are already everywhere - in llama-cpp, or the quantization machinery of unsloth and the likes.

I forked it to also add rotorquant. This is a specific optimization that uses clifford rotors instead of static compile time random purmutation to store the activations. Reduces space and parameter count for the storage.

Fixed points are a window to the soul of a LLM

- Lucretius in "De rerum natura", probably

Luxembourg: Purchase price = 2 x sales price, mostly due to grid costs.

And this is with no income tax or VAT on sold electricity.

Isn't the bomb argument actually a statement about (the current way we implement) democracy?

Maybe it's the separation of powers that's not working...

If I understand correctly, I see all your points as potential rewards.

These rewards are useful to the US if they accomplish regime change to a friendly regime or at least military occupation of a good strip of land.

The article is about how these two preconditions for obtaining the rewards are unlikely to be fulfilled and, at the same time, non-accomplishment might achieve the opposite:

- Iran (and by necessity, other Gulf states if they want to export oil) align more with China

- US-partnership will not provide security (Arab states, South Korea and other allies are now less secure and the US can't protect them)

- US and allies are in a worse position to secure South America

Huge risk with little chances of a reward. That's the article.

Modifying the rewards does not change the game unless the probability of obtaining them increases or that of the risks decreases.

Can you point out a better source or the major points that become invalid due to other circumstances?

Useful for evaluating people as well

...the only edition where you can disable bing as default search engine

Honestly I didn't even realize Bing hasn't yet been rebranded as Copilot. And honestly who needs a "search engine" anymore when you can just ask Friend Copilot?

Or name them after little bobby tables.

Is there some sort of injection that's a legal host name?

DNS naming rules for non-Unicode are letters, numbers, and hyphens only, and the hyphens can't start or stop the domain. Unicode is implemented on top of that through punycode. It's possible a series of bugs would allow you to punycode some sort of injection character through into something but it would require a chain of faulty software. Not an impossibly long chain of faulty software by any means, but a chain rather than just a single vulnerability. Punycode encoders are supposed leave ASCII characters as ASCII characters, which means ASCII characters illegal in DNS can't be made legal by punycoding them legally. I checked the spec and I don't see anything for a decoder rejecting something that jams one in, but I also can't tell if it's even possible to encode a normal ASCII character; it's a very complicated spec. Things that receive that domain ought to reject it, if it is possible to encode it. And then it still has to end up somewhere vulnerable after that.

Rules are just rules. You can put things in a domain name which don't work as hostnames. Really the only place this is enforced by policy is at the public registrar level. Only place I've run into it at the code level is in a SCADA platform blocking a CNAME record (which followed "legal" hostname rules) pointing to something which didn't. The platform uses jython / python2 as its scripting layer; it's java; it's a special real-time java: plenty of places to look for what goes wrong, I didn't bother.

People should know that they should treat the contents of their logs as unsanitized data... right? A decade ago I actually looked at this in the context of a (commercial) passive DNS, and it appeared that most of the stuff which wasn't a "valid" hostname was filtered before it went to the customers.