On 7 July, MEPs voted 331–303 to fast-track the return of Chat Control 1.0 mass scanning. A binding vote follows Thursday, 9 July, where an absolute majority of 361 MEPs is needed to stop it. Take action now to demand they defend your private messages.

"Yes" means stop control, because it's a "proposition de rejet" we're looking at. rejet = reject. Parties in favor of chat control were:

- European People’s Party and

- Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats.

Countries in favor of chat control were:

Spain, Poland, Romania, Sweden, Hungary, Portugal, Greece, Ireland, Lithuania, Latvia, Cyprus

If you look at the initial vote from July 7, there are a few countries who actually wanted to make it an "urgent decision" (other than the countries above):

France, Czechia, Finland, Croatia, Luxembourg

I think they didn't, so I don't see why them having the responsibility matters.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48432784

Points: 3

# Comments: 0

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

- Lucretius in "De rerum natura", probably

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

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

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.

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

As follow-up thoughts:

- It's important whom you listen to. Consider it a gift you're giving and give it only to those who you think deserve and not abuse it or make you consistently feel bad about something.

- Those listeners are also very healthy in/for a group,e.g., at work.

- Listening is a big part of managing a team. People's thoughts are often all over the place and it's your job (partly) to structure these, within a person and a across a team. People that feel heard are much more inclined to listen.

- For starters: Just make an effort to ask five open-ended questions in every conversation you have. You will see how people open up after some time. This also works for family, dates, colleagues, ...

https://www.linux-magazine.com/Online/News/Munich-Plans-to-D...

Tangentially, you could ask: Are you addicted to being useful or to being recognized as useful.

One is your own need, the other often a covered contract where you lash out or silently resign if you don't get the recognition that you think you deserve.