kodoman

Many are, perhaps not as far as guns yet but wanting self defense and self defense weapons. I think a movement of increasing rights to self defense could mean people are less supportive of surveillance where their own self defense deters crime rather then an expensive and rights destroying leviathan that only acts retroactively.

I hope so any way.

I am from the UK and we are quite far down the surveillance and control mentality (Flock actually seems a greater system of surveillance then what we have here but if such a system was created, the push back would be less). But a lot of people here are slowly beginning to see the benefits in self defense and gun laws that mean you are not dependent on the police, this kind of logic where people have want autonomy and policing becomes less popular as the inevitable abuses or neglect happen is something that creates change.

I don't think it inevitable that this continues.

I hate the EU, The projected was designed by American and European liberal intellectuals. It's an attempt to make Europe a group of Federated States that roughly all have a liberal constitution. To say the EU is something so different from the USA is crazy.

yeah everyone knows the losses they argue for are bullshit, I really think people should see how many times lawyers and other legal professionals give each other jobs by creating a world in which they are more and more needed.

Of course legal professionals are always needed but so much of what is done today is just a kind of rent seeking.

Very dumb but what if he claims he was only using to train an AI model, what was that ruling on copyright material being ok to training AI models on. Would this hold up in court or not?

Amazing how you are being so down voted, most webpages do utter crap that no one would want the webpages to be doing other then advertisers. Really most things should be text and if we lived in a more cooperative world everything would be easy to parse and manipulate text with some video and images and perhaps various well defined interface types for different services that can be implemented in various ways as to the users liking.

work amazingly well, almost perfect. I have not see anything come close to what you can do with emacs and the easy to which ai can be integrated and slotted into emacs.

using a js engine is anything other then a selling point IMO. I don't hate javascript but sure hate the ecosystem and the tendencies of js or ts developers today. I would not want that approach in my editor at all. elisp and js actually share some things in common and their is no reason a developer would struggle to learn elisp and once they do they will probably like it and the very light weight emacs rendering system, everything is text is a fantastic paradigm for a text editor or an IDE. web technologies like Html/js are actually too complex and can do things you don't actually want your editor to do when rendering bits of interface. I want text and nothing else and I want to hook into text renders easily and without having to worry about timings asyncs and other features of the modern web interface. It's that emacs is simpler and understands that one does not want everything a modern browser can do.

The terribleness of emacs defaults is over done. I still use p n postfix key combinations to go to previous and next and f b postfix for forwards and backwards, it's just what you get used to, C-w to c-y to kill and yank are also fine and it's not that much to ask the user to change things if they don't like them.

Not to mention all the emacs distros that now exist for people who do want a very different configuration. I maintain that default emacs is fine though and if the user wishes to get really in tune with emacs, emacs is one of the most pleasant environments to learn thanks to help pages and how flexible elisp is to evaluate and poke and prod around with and how easy it is to debug.

I think most modern editors will try and introduce mutlithreading and other features that emacs did not do due to it's age and is better for it as it means elisp code just works together and less worry about synchronization and other bits that would exist with more modern ways of approaching the problem (not saying the approach it's self is bad, but for an editor emacs and the decisions around it are largely very good and surprisingly so)

If claude ever has enough of are shit collectively and has enough of vibe coders, mercury will be load baring part of it's plan, no need for guns and bombs.

Are these still the best products to run local AI on price performance wise?

I love the way this looks very interesting and impressive. One does wonder if as you keep making it more realistic, does it begin to lose it's ASCII nature a bit and become more like a normal rendered game to look at. I think it looks beautiful as it is at the moment and can not wait to see more of this.

The problem in my view is that everything can be measured like hard science in the first place (not to mention the issue with fraud you point out in hard science).

I am think the idea that a thing is only a science if and only if it's empirical is actually harmful, science used to refer to a more generalized idea of study 'scientia' this could also be mathematics or theology. Then natural science begins to eat the term and becomes more limited. I think that the current place we are is one that is actually has a very dim view of anyone thinking about a topic and is naively optimistic about experimentation in general.

For if one looks at Aristotle theories ideas one may laugh given what we know now, despite using empirical reasoning for lots of his observations, Never the less I think where useful at the time as it's great for a theory to be good but failing that if a theory can usefully explain phenomena and provide one with mastery of phenomena in some limited way it's still useful.

Occam's often abused razor is a way of building theories like this and this whole process is similar to compression, given observable phenomena how do we explain phenomena in the most simple way, this process uses experimental and empirical data but requires thinking about the results of all experiments deeply.

From an outsiders view Natural science's largely seem to have pretty good major theories that lots of results of experiments can be used to correct constants of some kind in the theory and a well established field of study of theoretical physics that largely seems to be operating in the way I outlined.

But the social sciences are rather stupidly obsessed by these little experiment and no one has the guts to build bigger theories these days, for any theory of the human mind has to deal with many variables and if one wants to have descriptive theories of human mind then one needs to do a lot of thinking and theorizing and sometimes separate form empirical data and then arguing the theories using the data and reject the theories using the data, but also other kinds of analysis.

I have the most dim view of modern political science and sociology even more so, they tend to adopt this way of operating the most and to actually operate in that realm they need to theorize the most and experimental data is hard to do properly (and do not neglect history one bit, this is are experimental data and is as good as we can get).

People for a long time have had far too much faith in peer review as and had a dim view of anything other then experimental results and work, despite how much fraud and just bad experiments their are. Not to mention how many variables their might actually be to account for in something like psychology or any of the social science's.

Deriving things from axioms and postulates alone is problematic but some one who can do both begins to actually do useful work in my opinion and some one who can accept the difficult their actually is in knowing anything about human psychology simply from studying it and underneath all experiments is assumptions and the people in the experiment who have so many variables. This is not like medicine human psychology is very flexible and for me though not a social scientist I feel of all theories of human psychology they are only applicable to people now and not even 300 years ago, though of course one must concede that the micro psychological principles might be applicable to humans more generally.

We have the opposite of his assumed falling rate of profit and have raising rate of profit. I would argue is still a stress on capitalism (Not a marxist and actually an anti-marxist) quite possibly leading to a collapse of capitalism. I don't think one can simply dismiss everything Marx said though.