In the search bar it says "Updated 2 weeks ago", like if there were additional recent comments or actions in this thread that we cannot see.
So it could actually be OpenAI Whisper model, for which we have the final binary format (the weights), but not the source training data, but it is the best you can get for free.
Yeah, it'd be nice if we could all use 'open source' to mean 'open weights' + 'open training set', instead of just 'open weights'. I fear that ship has sailed though. Maybe call it a 'libre' model or something?
Why would Russia want the EU dead. They were selling 10's of billions of dollars of oil and gas to it each year. Russia is however a bit paranoid about its own security, having being invaded numerous times over the centuries and wants to keep control of its own economic destiny.
Provide a way where security of both Europe and Russia can be provided for and peace will quickly follow.
> Russia is however a bit paranoid about its own security, having being invaded numerous times over the centuries and wants to keep control of its own economic destiny.
In soviet Russua, Russia is the one constantly being invaded.
> Provide a way where security of both Europe and Russia can be provided for and peace will quickly follow.
So if i'm following you correctly, Russia's nuclear arsenal wasn't enough to provide security. Only thing we haven't tried for more security is to have every European nation be in control of their own nuclear arsenal?
Its a bold claim, but by golly you've snorted enough foreign-sourced talking points that you might actually be right!
Russia is however a bit paranoid about its own security,
Every rational actor (including Putin) knows that not a single NATO country is interested in invading Russia. He might have been worried about a democratic uprising in his country like Ukraine in 2014, but given how much an autocracy Russia has become, that's pretty unlikely now.
Provide a way where security of both Europe and Russia can be provided for and peace will quickly follow.
It's very clear that Putin wants to annex countries that he considers Russia's property (mostly former Soviet states). He has wars in Ukraine, Chechnya, and Georgia to back it.
Putin's word in a peace treaty will be worth as much as him saying that he wouldn't invade Ukraine up till the invasion. Nada. The only thing that will work is military deterrence.
>It's very clear that Putin wants to annex countries that he considers Russia's property
Nothing more than fantasy that justifies the warhawk stance among liberals. It is completely disconnected from reality. What Russia wants is safety from NATO. NATO in Ukraine would have been a strategic noose from which Russia would never escape. Ukrainian neutrality lead to peace. Ukraine with NATO aspirations lead to this war. The simplest answer is the right one in this case.
Russian conquest wars in the last 30 years: Chechnya 1994–1996 and 1999–2009, Georgia 2008 (Abkhazia and South Ossetia) & Ukraine (2014 - today).
> Ukrainian neutrality lead to peace.
When Russians invaded Donbas in 2014, Ukraine actually had a non-aligned, neutral status. It only invited the Russians as they perceived it as weakness. Ukriaine's effort to join NATO was in hope of gaining a defense umbrella.
To call them "conquest wars" is just a-historical self-serving nonsense.
>When Russians invaded Donbas in 2014, Ukraine actually had a non-aligned, neutral status.
They had a non-aligned status up until the moment their elected government was overthrown. At that point Ukraine's status is undefined. How was the government overthrown you ask? A US regime change operation: https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/comments/1ghs32...
Government was overthrown in February 2014, the Ukrainian parliament renounced Ukraine's non-aligned status in December 2014 while Russia annexed Crimea in February/March 2014 and attacked Donbas in April 2014 - all while while Ukraine was still neutral and non-aligned.
> US regime change operation
I haven't seen any actual proof for that, only speculation like what you are linking to.
LE:
And you'd need some strong proof considering that everything that happened afterwards completely vindicated Ukrainian people's fear of Russia and their desire to get closer to the West.
As someone who lives in Eastern Europe and who also lived through a bloody revolution to get out from under the Russian boot - let me tell you: we don't need external influences to desire to live in peace and freedom, to pursue our happiness and prosperity. We are just like you, people of the West, in that regard. We don't want to live under Russian occupation any more than you do and we are willing to pay the blood price for the privilege.
The point at which neutral status is officially renounced is of no consequence. When the existing polity is replaced, any agreements or expectations of the behavior of the nation are moot. Hence their status being "undefined".
>I haven't seen any actual proof for that, only speculation like what you are linking to.
Yes, it turns out sometimes you need to make inferences and compare historical events and M-Os to get a clear picture of what happened out of the public eye. The fact that some people can't even entertain the notion that the US had a hand in Ukraine's revolution just underscores your psychological need to feel like moral heroes while calling for escalation in the war. But there is enough circumstantial evidence (like the Nuland intercept) that paints a very clear picture to those who aren't taken in by motivated reasoning.
Safety from NATO means being in a strong defensive position with respect to NATOs ability to project force. This isn't just about proximity, but about control of strategic resources. The US pushed Turkey through NATO ascension because access to the Black Sea was deemed strategically valuable in an eventual war with the USSR. Russia needs to counter that threat and losing the port in Crimea would be a strategic blunder.
They have had the port in Crimea since 2014. They still wanted more.
Hell, when they started the war, it was supposedly about "demilitarization". By now they have officially annexed four more regions of Ukraine (well, the parts they control) in addition to Crimea, two of which wasn't even occupied until 2022.
The current status quo was unsustainable. Crimea was indefensible without a land bridge through the Donbass. Ukraine was attacking Crimea by cutting off its water supply. Ukraine was also being trained and armed by the US. Time was against Russia in terms of a conflict with Ukraine being on favorable terms. NATO in Ukraine meant that Crimea would be lost eventually. Control of the Donbass gives Russia control of Crimea's water supply while allowing a proper defense.
You know, it's almost funny how Russian "national patriots" keep saying that NATO will attack any time now for... 30 years at least? I remember reading books about this in late 90s.
Yet, somehow, it's Russia that keeps invading neighboring countries. Who then scramble to join NATO because they don't want to be next.
Have y'all considered that maybe if you tried not constantly trying to rebuild your empire on the backs of your neighbors by invading and occupying their territory, you would actually have that regional stability and peace that you claim to seek? Regardless of who is and isn't in NATO even?
30 Years is nothing on the timescales of geopolitics. How long has China been talking about unifying with Taiwan? Yet no one is under any illusion that China won't eventually make a move against Taiwan. The claim that Russia should consider NATO expansion irrelevant to its security is pure gaslighting.
This is just one example of many if you Google. And don't bother trying to parse words to claim this isn't really an example of claiming NATO expansion is benign to Russia's security, it'll just confirm you are engaging in bad-faith.
No, its not at all different. Like I said, bad faith.
Edit: Lol didn't recognize your username. If you didn't begin your engagements on such an adversarial footing, you might get more constructive replies.
"And even more precisely: it's a claim that absolutely no one makes."
"So you're gaslighting yourself, in effect."
Come now, those are very much adversarial.
Regarding the main point of contention: Russia complains about NATO expansion raising security concerns and the response from NATO/US representatives is "NATO is defensive pact", "Russia has nothing to fear from NATO", "This is a new NATO... Its enemy is not Russia", and so on. This list could go on and on. But the denial of NATO presenting a security concern to Russia is just an assertion that NATO is benign to Russia's security. In other words, NATO expansion is irrelevant to Russian security. These terms all mean the same thing in the context of whether NATO and NATO expansion is a security threat to Russia.
Seriously, this is all just the basic meaning of words. If it's not obvious to you, then I don't know what to tell you. Perhaps consult ChatGPT.
The first statement (the one that began the engagement) obviously was not.
And ironically -- your misinterpretation of that statement (as adversarial when it clearly wasn't) is exactly what I was referring to in the second statement. By which was meant, in somewhat longer form: "It seems you're going out of your way to read adversarial intent when there simply isn't any in there."
The only time someone says "absolutely no one thinks/says/does X" is when they are politely accusing someone of lying or bullshitting. So yes, very much adversarial. This should all just be so obvious.
>The tumor is benign
You left off the contextualizing clause which just changes the meaning of the sentence. "The tumor is benign/irrelevant to your continued ability to play the piano" has the same meaning with either phrasing.
As to the main point of contention -- I think a fair description of the consensus view of the situation, among people who have the temerity to disagree with you, goes about like this:
"Of course NATO enlargement was something of an annoyance to Russia. Specifically it can be taken as a signal that NATO might confront Russia's own moves for influence in say, the Balkans, North Africa or the Middle East -- places that, last we checked, are not Russia. It may even choose to involve itself in direct conflict with Russia's allies, such as Serbia, for good reasons or bad. One could also argue that it threatens Russia's 'brand' and prestige in softer ways; and one could even argue that the very existence of NATO is kind of an insult to Russia."
"But every rational actor knows that NATO was never going to actually attack Russia, itself, without cause. Or even threaten to do so. Certainly not in the sense of an all-out, tanks-across-the-steppes assault, or a pre-emptive nuclear strike that Russia pretends to believe is the ultimate goal of its expansion."
"Nor is there any long-range plan in the works to station forces of any kind on Russia's borders that could potentially threaten or signal the capability for such an invasion, in for extortion purposes (in essence), as Russia's current regime also pretends to believe. You simply will not find a shred of evidence for any line of thinking in support of such a plan."
"All that pretense is just that -- pretense and propaganda. It's just a foil that its various incarnations of its regime have used, over decade, first to justify its continued occupation of the Warsaw Pact countries, and now, to distract from its actual reasons for its invading Ukraine (and manacing other countries). And to get its people to sign up for the endless meat-grinder war it managed to create for them there, once its delusional expectations of a quick, decisive victory evaporated on first contact with reality."
So if people say things like "NATO's expansion is benign to Russia's security concerns", that's the framing in which that sentiment is most likely meant. They may be oversimplifying slightly, but not by much.
This is a false narrative that Putin propagates all the time (besides that Ukraine is run by nazis) and is not supported by history. He did attack Georgia and Chechnya. There was no danger at all of these countries joining NATO anytime soon.
At any rate, it has been a severe miscalculation on Putin's part. He thought they could take Ukraine in days and the aggression led Finland and Sweden to join NATO.
It's weird to see people say stuff like this. Like, are you completely ignorant of the history of US initiated regime change around the world? Do you not find it at all plausible? The US has a very long history of doing this very sort of thing[1]. Do you think the three letter agencies have just been sitting on their hands in recent decades? I just don't get how people can engage in such willful ignorance.
I can simultaneously find something plausible and see that there's historical precedent for it, but not accept unsubstantiated fantasy stories made up on the internet.
The reasoning you're expressing here is basically: "Heck it's plausible, right? Therefore it might as well have happened. There's no need to actually substantiate that it did. It suffices to just have a gut feeling that it happened."
Nevermind the Jeffrey Sachs interview that no one has time to watch. His take has been debunked elsewhere. What matters here is your own reasoning here, which is incredibly specious. If you can't see the obvious flaw in the argument that you laid down, then I don't know what to tell you.
BTW, here's another helpful suggestion: If you're on your favorite website some day, looking for answers to what's going in the world, and you see the top-posted comment for some article or interview that you thought really rocked is some obviously useless, snarky drivel like the following (taken from the Reddit link you posted):
Putin just woke up one day, stumbled his toe or something, and decided to invade Ukraine.
Then that should perhaps suggest to you that, far from being your friend, that website, and the articles and videos that get top-posted to it, are probably kinda dodgy. And that maybe you should taking the content you find there with a heaping portion of salt. And that you might want to try fact-checking the content and arguments you find there, instead simply believing it all outright. Or better yet, just stop wasting your time on that website altogether.
Like, are you completely ignorant of the history of US initiated regime change around the world?
I know all about it, and can probably cite dozens of instances off the top of my head. But none of that history translates to evidence that US-initiated regime change actually happened in a given country X, in year Y. It's just innuendo, nothing more.
That's a lot of words just to say nothing of substance. If you want to make a substantive point--feel free. But I have no interest in engaging with this kind of mindless slop. And regarding the subreddit, if you don't know anything about it, you shouldn't draw any conclusions from the snarky comments you happen to see.
It's not just that one comment - it's nearly every comment. The fact that that nearly every thread on that subreddit is basically a giant echo chamber should also be telling you something.
Criticisms of Sachs's take are easy to find, and quite devastating. Whether you care to look into the matter is up to you.
Yes its an echo chamber, but not by fiat of the mods. It exists as an alternative to the pro-Ukraine echo chamber that is strictly enforced everywhere else on reddit. That the sub ends up skewed pro Russian is just a reflection of it being the only place on reddit where news and takes that aren't 100% Ukraine cheerleading are allowed to be posted.
>Criticisms of Sachs's take are easy to find, and quite devastating. Whether you care to look into the matter is up to you.
If you didn't want a substantive engagement on these points, why did you bother to reply? Just to promote the sanctioned opinion on Ukraine? Don't you think there's enough of that on social media?
Just to promote the sanctioned opinion on Ukraine?
My own strategy is to completely ignore what the "sanctioned opinion" (whatever that means) on a given topic is, and to work the factual chronology and reasonably verifiable reporting or statements best as I can. That, and whenever possible, to talk with people who were on the ground or reasonably close to it at the time. Or who are at least from the region, seem knowledgeable, and definitely are not assholes or otherwise have some major axe to grind.
I also try to ignore nearly all social media, to whatever extent possible.
But hey, that's just me. You do you. I wouldn't say I didn't want a substantive engagement, but it's getting late, and I think we've both said enough. We just disagree. We didn't start this war, and in the broader picture, I suspect we're probably more or less on the same basic side of the basic moral issues.
>My own strategy is to completely ignore what the "sanctioned opinion" (whatever that means) on a given topic is, and to work the factual chronology and reasonably verifiable reporting or statements best as I can. That, and whenever possible, to talk with people who were on the ground or reasonably close to it at the time.
Great. I take a similar approach.
It's unfortunate you felt the need to begin the conversation with snark and irrelevant verbiage. But I can understand being jaded from wasting time engaging with people who aren't interested in substantively examining an issue.
Despite the missed opportunity, I am interested in engaging with what you consider a solid rebuttal to Sachs' points mentioned in the linked video. Feel free to offer a resource if you have one handy. I won't respond to it with a rebuttal or anything along those lines. It's purely for my own edification.
You may also want to take a closer look at this guy, on whose program Sachs chose to appear multiple times in 2022 -- noted for among other things calling for Kyiv to be "destroyed", and Kharkiv to be "wiped off the face of the earth":
If EU dies, Russia will keep selling its oil and gas to European countries, but the latter will be more divided when it comes to negotiating prices. As a large business, you want your customers to be as powerless as possible so that you can jack up prices as high as you can.
All true, and the EU complicit in all of those. Maybe not by choice (see remark about sovereignty at the end), but complicit nonetheless. You also forgot Syria, Yemen, Yugoslavia and probably a few others as well.
> Russia owns Trump and Russia wants the EU dead.
Sorry, but this is not Reddit.
> By no means should the EU get cosy with the US.
The EU has no choice other than be "cosy" with the US. It's called Pax Americana.
In simple terms, the deal is this and always has been this since WW2 ended: the EU has traded political sovereignty for security, to and from the US.
Russia wants Trump as his backhand man and that's what they got. America wants freedom yet at the same time they're happy to accept brokerage from a
man who dreams of an neo-USSR.
> I can't fathom where you got that from.
world peace was a rush mix of words. What I mean at least they held stability of the world stage.
> EU is complicit
I'm not saying the EU is a saint. The EU has an agenda and evils of its own. But as a figurehead and representation of many countries up on the world stage it held a positive power.
Countries could count on the nation for relief unlike any other.
Common ground. The whole democratic apparatus of the United States might get severely hollowed out for the foreseeable future, and you're talking about finding common ground.
It's somewhat besides the point of the piece and might be unfair, but I can't help to feel an immediate sense of distrust for any piece of writing that uses AI images.
Anyways, tying lending terms to the value of the degree sounds like a horrible idea, because how do you even determine that?
Seems to me the big issue is A) that the loans are managed b private companies with ridiculous terms and that even public state universities can basically behave like private companies by increasing prices this much.
Why can't the government not just radioactive prices for their own universities
> It's somewhat besides the point of the piece and might be unfair, but I can't help to feel an immediate sense of distrust for any piece of writing that uses AI images.
Im guessing that you’re probably not representative of the target audience, or the author doesn’t know his audience well.
The image is thematically appropriate. I don’t think the author is trying to bamboozle anyone with that image.
My problem is that it’s extremely poorly-done. The chain seems to sprout from the first student’s hair. If the author couldn’t be bothered to pay attention to the first thing people see when they click on the webpage, how much thought is put into the rest of the article?
Same here about distrusting pieces that use AI art. It’s like… a signifier of something hard to describe — values, qualities — that makes me want to listen to someone’s point of view less.
It's a sign of low effort, maybe? If they're not putting much effort into the art, maybe they're not putting much into the writing, either. Maybe not even into the thinking.
Interesting considering the Pixel 6 has 403 PPI and my phone Nothing Phone (1) has 402 PPI. So almost identical in that regard. Maybe it's a browser difference (Firefox here).
The biggest hurdle to passkey adoption is going to be, how complicated they are to implement for developers (relative to their advantages). I think that's the much more pressing matter than user adoption.
Can you tell more about it? I never tried to implement it myself, but when I quickly skimmed over relevant info, I didn't find anything particular hard about it. Just some web APIs and some simple crypto (which probably further abstracted in the libraries, but you can use crypto primitives directly if you want).
Doesn't look harder than proper password implementation with hashing, salting, etc.
The #1 issue as far as I'm aware is that there's no good story around portability. It sounds like using Passkey equals vendor lock-in right now.
Idk how representative this is, but there's been some criticism recently, and the response from some of the people behind passkeys implementation seem mostly dismissive of the criticism. I base this opinion after watching this 'debunking' video on the criticism of passkeys by some key players:
I was kind of surprised they sort of looked down on the people with concerns. I didn't really have a strong opinion about Passkeys, before watching this. But after watching, I got the impression they people behind Passkeys are probably smart as hell but perhaps not the best stewards of developing open standards and advocates for the general public.
Disclosure: I'm the author of the first blog post.
I think my personal biggest learning when developing passkey-based authentication is that there's a bunch of useful WebAuthn libraries for every major language / framework. However, these libraries only cover very basic uses cases to login and create a passkey. In real-life applications though there are so many scenarios (users deleting the private key of a passkey, users using non-passkey-ready devices, etc.) that require substantial work on your own and it's not really obvious when you start developing a passkey-based auth solution. It's something that most devs discover on the journey.
I implemented them for a personal project about 6 months ago. The library support is pretty good. The biggest draw for me was that it's easier for the users of my site to use passkeys.
So your auth will then be tied to their API and you'll be paying $30 a month + a per user fee.
What bugs me about that kind of thing is that there have been secure password and oauth implementations that are easy to get started with for years, yet there's this continual edging into this space by people looking to make a buck and able to sell it to management because it has pretty dashboards. My personal take on these paid for solutions is you have to do nearly as much work, and you lose understand and power not having it integrated into your own product. Plus when one of these auth services gets compromised it's a far worse situation.
I think this is a cool tool, although my personal preference when working with GraphQL is to have it be a very thin layer over my graphQL agnostic API function calls.
Grats author here. That's supported as well. You can simply write annotated wrapper functions/classes/types/interfaces around your GraphQL agnostic API.
I don't find it ironic at all. The purpose of telemetry is to be able to obtain information about the user population at large. It's anonymous and the data only flows one way (i.e. you don't see personalized ads based on telemetry data), but of course some data about your browsing behavior is being sent somewhere, yes.
It's a trade-off: You sent some anonymous usage data but in turn that contributes to decisions made about the product. If you opt-out of sending this data, obviously, it does not contribute to the pool of data from which decisions are being made.
Now, that a small group of people with very specific opinions and preferences is the same that disproportionally also opt out of sending telemetry... I don't see how that is Mozilla's problem.
You can't have your cake and eat it too, as the saying goes.
> Now, that a small group of people with very specific opinions and preferences is the same that disproportionally also opt out of sending telemetry... I don't see how that is Mozilla's problem.
I disagree. If you create a piece of software and develop a userbase that disproportionately opts out of telemetry relative to your software's alternatives, congratulations, you won. You got the power users, the developers, the people who care enough to submit quality bug reports, they're all on your side. Game over.
You don't need telemetry to understand what features these users need because they will tell you - loudly and forcefully - in bug reports filed if you break something. Assuming we're talking about open source software, and we are, they may also be the people sending you patches and improvements for these features.
Telemetry is what you need if you're making a mass market product that meets the needs of 80% of users. It isn't necessary, and in fact may not be useful, if you're developing software designed around the needs of the people contributing to the software. Some software tries to do both. But the way you do that isn't by looking exclusively at telemetry and then pretending that what you see there describes the behavior of all user categories, at least when it comports with the plans of your UX team. It's by listening to the people who are most passionate about the software.
The users who opt out of telemetry are a very tiny minority barely worth considering in terms of numbers. Further, they are explicitly saying "I don't value my vote on feature usage as much as I value turning off this data report which contains zero personal information and is used for no other purposes than changing the product. Again, don't want a voice in how the product evolves, cool, just don't complain about not having a voice down the road when something you don't like happens. It's like people who don't like their local politician who spent the year before bragging about how voting was stupid and just a way for the government to track you so you weren't going to do it.
An idea can be good regardless of telemetry, telemetry is descriptive and not prescriptive. Telemetry is inherently reductive in that sense. You're making a leap of logic that's genuinely unfounded - an idea can be good or bad and this is wholly independent of telemetry unless your only concern is maximising or minimising use of some kind of feature. I would never dismiss an idea because someone has telemetry disabled and it seems like a genuinely disturbing idea to even hold the position that a user with telemetry disabled is lacking value.
A user with telemetry disabled isn't lacking value, it's throwing away its vote. Plain and simple, if you want a vote that tells the software maker how you think the product is best used, that's telemetry. If you don't care about that vote, throw it away by turning off telemetry. Now, telemetry is only one (small) input into whether a feature warrants maintenance in a codebase of over 20 million lines, but it is one input that you have involvement in. As I said, up to you if you want to use your vote or throw it away but it's silly to complain about not having a voice after tossing yours in the dumpster.
I don't know, this post wants to convince readers that there are UX rules from which the theme author created an objectively better Firefox theme, yet most of the changes strike me as personal preferences.
It's obviously well made and maintained, but personally I don't think it's visually very appealing and looks in parts more cluttered. So I think people have different preferences, Firefox went with one design but they also enable support to make these changes, and that's all nice.
But I find the post to a bit silly, in that the author wants to prove that their preferences are empirically right.
Maybe they're really using a truly open source model (probably not) but the meaning of the word is muddied already.