patatahooligan

Third, Musk deflects from accusations he’s a Nazi (“that’s a crazy thing to say”) but he never responds by saying “What Hitler did was horrible and I’m not a Nazi and detest their ideology” which is what someone would say if not a Nazi.

This is the most important point, IMO. Fascists who want mainstream acceptance know not to have swastika tattoos and not to openly say they love Hitler. They will always try to have some plausible deniability. Don't get dragged into their bullshit arguments. There's no point in debating whether the nazi salute was some other motion that was misinterpreted. Even if it was, the first thing a non-nazi would do would be to clarify that they are not a nazi and don't want nazis to think they're their allies. Even if Musk had completely inadvertently stumbled upon the love and support of the nazis via a series of misunderstandings (lol), at this point in time he is deliberately choosing to be part of them.

Here is Musk at 3:08:01 saying he's not a nazi... and then going on to say you're not a nazi unless you're literally invading Poland and doing the holocaust. That is literally the only objectionable thing about the nazis. Not their "fashion sense or mannerisms". Yes that was a direct quote. There is really only one type of person that would not mention as objectionable the nazi ideology or all the acts of violence that are not at the same scale as the holocaust.

There are indirect benefits to visitors, though. Yes, most people are a drain on resources because they visit strictly to read and never to contribute. The minority that do contribute, though, are presumably people who used Wikipedia and liked it, or people who enjoy knowing that other people are benefiting from their contributions. I'm not sure people will donate or edit on Wikipedia if they believe no one is using it.

I agree with you that the one liner isn't a good example, but I do prefer the "left to right" syntax shown in the article. My brain just really likes getting the information in this order: "Iterate over Collection, and for each object do Operation(object)".

The cost of writing member functions for each class is a valid concern. I'm really interested in the concept of uniform function call syntax for this reason, though I haven't played around with a language that has it to get a feeling of what its downsides might be.

The crawlers for LLM are not themselves LLMs.

Your examples where an LLM is defending a position you chose for it while producing obviously conflicting arguments actually proves what the others have been telling you. This is meaningless slop. It clearly has no connection to any position an LLM might have appeared to have on a subject. If it did, you would not be able to make it defend the opposite side without objections.

The article kind of fumbles the wording and creates confusion. There are, however, some passages that indicate to me that the actual data was recovered. All of the following are taking about the NAND flash memory.

The engineers quickly found that all the data was there despite Tesla’s previous claims.

...

Now, the plaintiffs had access to everything.

...

Moore was astonished by all the data found through cloning the Autopilot ECU:

“For an engineer like me, the data out of those computers was a treasure‑trove of how this crash happened.”

...

On top of all the data being so much more helpful, Moore found unallocated space and metadata for snapshot_collision_airbag‑deployment.tar’, including its SHA‑1 checksum and the exact server path.

It seems that maybe the .tar file itself was not recovered, but all the data about the crash was still there.

Forensic analysis managed to retrieve this data, so it must have been stored in non-volatile memory.

I see a few top level comments agreeing with the sentiment that users are being entitled or abusive, but what are they actually referring to? The linked image certainly has no evidence of such behavior. Someone who claims to be the developer filed a deletion request for the duckstation-git AUR package on the AUR and they say:

Every time, it turns into abuse towards me, as you can also see in the comments for the package.

I read through a few pages of the comments here and they're mostly people talking about fixing issues with the package, and what to do about the dev purposely breaking the build... I only found a single message that could be called abuse:

@eugene, not really but i suspect it's an uphill battle, check the commit message: https://github.com/stenzek/duckstation/commit/30df16cc767297c544e1311a3de4d10da30fe00c

FWIW, I'm moving to pcsx-redux, I rather run a little bit less advanced PSX emulator than software by this upstream asshat. Regardless, much thanks for maintaining the AUR package so far.

And even this is not a good example of what stenzek is describing. For one, it's obviously a reaction to stenzek's hostile changes and not the sort of user coming for support and being abusive that stenzek is talking about. The user is also explicitly moving to a different emulator and not expecting any change from duckstation.

I remember the maintainer claiming they had permission from all contributors to change the license but I can't find a link to it now.

This makes no sense. There might be various reasons a person might want/need to be on facebook. Does that mean they waive all right to privacy in every aspect of their life forever?

No, there's no way to automatically make something become law. A successful petition just forces the European Commission to discuss it and potentially propose legislation. Even though it's not forcing anything to happen, there is an incentive for the commission to seriously consider it as there is probably a political cost to officially denying a motion that has proven that it concerns a large amount of people.

Sign the petition even if it's surpassed 1mil signatures by the time you read this! The signatures will be verified after the petition is complete. This could lead to removal of any number of them. We don't want to barely make it. Let's go as high as possible!