It seems this second time around amendment votes produced a final draft that the parliament as a whole found unacceptable, which apparently includes the majority of the EPP.

You can see the outcome of the individual amendment votes here, starting on page 15: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/PV-10-2026-03-...

and what the actual amendments were here: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/LIBE-AM-784377...

It is however quite tedious to go trough this to figure out what the final draft text was that then lead to the outright rejection.

From the tweet, it seems tuta is implying it was the vote in favour of amendment 34 that killed the extension; I guess that's possible but certainly not obvious from the amendment text:

> Reports on the 1325% increase in generative AI produced child sexual material requires voluntary detection to be calibrated to distinguish artificial material and avoid diverting resources from victims in immediate danger. Such measures should prevent the revictimization of children through AI models, while ensuring that this technological development does not justify general monitoring, a relaxation of privacy standards, or the weakening of end-to-end encryption.

In fact what is described as "Parliament surprisingly voted to replace blanket mass surveillance with targeted monitoring of suspects following judicial involvement" is exactly the EP voting to amend the Commission proposal on an extension of existing itermim rules with text that explicitly limits the scope.

Just consider that "self propelled gun" and "main battle tank" are very different things despite the first being a quite accurate description of what the latter consists of. Or the distinction between a cruise missile and a one way drone...

Obviously the author has to do much work in selecting the correct bits from this baggage to get a structure that makes useful predictions, that is to say predictions that reproduces observable facts. But ultimately the theory comes from the author, not from the facts, it would be hard to imagine how one can come up with a theory that doesn't fit all the facts known to an author if the theory truly "emanated" from the facts in any sense strict enough to matter.

From wikipedia.

As it stands one should be happy if Meta catches most calls for the extermination of an ethnicity on its platform, that they would provide capabilities that allows a kid to protect themselves from bullying or grooming is just unimaginable.

Not sure what you mean with the claim that Newtonian Mechanics doesn't work in discretised space? I'm know there are plenty of codes that discretise space and solve fluid mechanical problems, and that's all Newtonian physics.

Of course you need a quite high resolution (compared to the voxel grid in teardown) when you discretise for it to come out like it does in reality, but if you truly want discretised physics on the same coarse scale as the voxels in teardown you can just run these methods and accept it looks weird.