Where is the human creativity in writing release notes gone?

Now the question to the round: in your opinion, are LLMs ok to learn in this way? At least on the theoretical side of things?

And on top of that, they put a sedative, just in case.

In requirements engineering, you do only codify things in the positive sense. The reason behind is that the system shall only do things that are described. If there are no things described, the system shall do nothing.

You can forbid a lot of things, but then you would have pages upon pages of requirements telling you things you may not even wanted implemented in the first place.

So it could be that exercise helps keep this elasticity, the same way maybe sauna does? Also antioxidants from vegetables etc.

So it could be that it is a _factor_, but definitely needs way more study.

I am also not in the medical field, but I think arteriosclerosis is a well known link for cardiovascular disease.

Now on a serious note: internet can go down anywhere, even for them. There is nowhere stated that, if your old hardware misbehaves, you can use others, and there are privacy concerns with running your stuff on their software stack… So I don’t see a huge advantage honestly.

I lose ownership of my laptop, you install whatever software you want on it (with the security risks that it conveys) and in turn "you let me connect to my computer"?

Let me get this straight: you can be a defender of human rights, aligned with the country you live in, but if you fall in disgrace with the American government, _you can't even do transactions with your own country_.

So this is fundamentally flawed, and violates the fundamental rights of German citizens in Germany.

[1] https://www.lbc.co.uk/article/british-icc-chief-prosecutor-l...

What I don't understand is: ELSTER (taxes) already uses electronic signatures, don't these signature already fulfil the requirements of eIDAS? Why do we even need Google/Apple?

This is to show that there is more geopolitically than meets the eye.

If the answer is no, then we cannot be sure to use it as a high-level language. The whole purpose of a language is providing useful, concise constructs to avoid something not being specified (undefined behavior).

If we can't guarantee that the behavior of the language is going to be the same, it is no better than prompting someone some requirements and not checking what they are doing until the date of delivery.

This is something that could be distilled from some industries like aviation, where specification of software (requirements, architecture documents, etc.) is even more important that the software itself.

The problem is that natural language is in itself ambiguous, and people don't really grasp the importance of clear specification (how many times I have repeated to put units and tolerances to any limits they specify by requirements).

Another problem is: natural language doesn't have "defaults": if you don't specify something, is open to interpretation. And people _will_ interpret something instead of saying "yep I don't know this".

Most of it happens, as always, at the interface. So these methodologies help you manage these interfaces between people, machine and product.

Here, Rebble says Core is profiting from their work (hey, look at your licenses). It would be a direct violation of their ToS though, since there is this clause:

> 4. Services Usage Limits > > You agree not to reproduce, duplicate, copy, sell, resell or exploit any portion of the Service, use of the Service, access to the Service, or Content accessed through use of the Service, without Rebble’s express written permission.

So I don't know what to think honestly, I don't see any bad actors here...