- Not everyone uses dollars.

- The price of credits in some currency could change after you bought them.

- The price of credits could be different for different customers (commercial, educational, partners, etc)

- They can ban trading of credits or let them expire

Here's a dataset that Eurostat publishes. It includes cash transfers and transfers in kind, compared using PPP (PPS) exchange rates:

Adjusted gross disposable income of households per capita in PPS

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/tec00113/defa...

It's largely meaningless, because some of what people are saving for in one country can be included in tax and social security contributions in another country - e.g. pensions and university tuition.

I could be wrong because I'm not following this too closely, but the open weights future of both Llama and Qwen looks tenuous to me. Yes, there are others, but I don't understand the business model.

I would remove the distinction between value types and reference types at the type level. This has caused so many bugs in my code. This distinction should be made where the types are used not where they are defined.

I would remove everything related to concurrency from the language itself. The idea to let code execute on random threads without any explicit hint at the call site is ridiculous. It's far too complicated and error prone, which is why Swift designers had to radically change the defaults between Swift 6.0 and 6.2 and it's still a mess.

I would remove properties that are really functions (and of course property wrappers). I want to see at the call site whether I'm calling a function or accessing a variable.

I would probably remove async/await as well, but this is a broader debate beyond Swift.

And yes you absolutely do have to know and use all features that a language has, especially if it's a corporate language where features are introduced in order to support platform APIs.

Politicians demanding total surveillance and population control? Of course there's an industry or two for that. Are they lobbying for this stuff? Absolutely.

But what's the causality? That's the ideological question.

In my view, it's a bit too convenient to blame all political evils on capitalism. Power is its own aphrodisiac. Bigotry has no prerequisits. Neither does stupidity.

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/FedCM_API

But ultimately websites can pop up whatever annoying nonsense they want. There isn't really any "way forward" except avoiding bad websites or using ad blockers.

Websites that choose to put a sign-in with Google button on a page can disable the popup by setting data-auto_prompt="false". The default being "true" is how Google is pushing this, but this seems like a rather gentle way of pushing.

It's clearly a deliberate choice that websites make. Your explanation as to why they're doing it seems very plausible to me.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47325235

Points: 1

# Comments: 0

My (limited) understanding is that LLMs are not capable of escaping their learned distribution by simply feeding on their own output.

But the question is whether the required external (out of distribution) "stimulus" needs to come from humans.

Could LLMs design experiments/interventions to get feedback from their environment like human scientists would?

I have my doubts that this is possible without an inherent causal reasoning capability but I'm not sure.

The UK government has approved 7 age verification methods. Not one of them meets that standard.

That's not an accident.

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/online-safety/protecting-children/a...

"From my experience building and scaling teams in fintech and high-traffic platforms, I can tell you that role expansion without clear boundaries always leads to the same outcome: people try to do everything, nothing gets done with the depth it requires, and burnout follows."

This reads like a first person account of someone's experience. Is it though? If it's nobody's experience then it robs this text of its meaning. If it is somebody's experience and that person used AI to improve their style then that's absolutely fine with me.

Unfortunately that doesn't change the fact even a small miscalculation could have an enormous impact. We are approaching levels of risk comparable in size to the subprime crisis of 2008.