Yes, but the constraints are completely different. iPhone and Jolla are effectively separate tools, where the ecosystem plays a crucial role for a consumer. The same ecosystem and gateway considerations do not apply to switch, routers and antennas.
What does jolla and iPhone have to do with network apparatuses?
You can make the case that an LLM is not a person, you cannot make the case that LLM work is not creative. The grounding justification of copyright lacked a foundational example of a non human creative process. If each single token emitted by the LLM is the result of math on the entire knowledge matrix, then each single token is derived from all the copyrighted documents used in training in a percentage you cannot even estimate. The mechanical transformation of an LLM is unknowable, unquantifiable and non deterministic. The copyright claim makes no sense in this case. A new shared mechanism must be put into place if we want to translate copyright through such mechanism. Lot of the training data used by LLM is synthetic so it pass through multiple layers of unknowable, unquantifiable, non deterministic “mechanisms”.
People learn from books and existing code. Does that means that anything we write is derived work?
An LLM knowledge matrix is a neural network, not a database. It does not contains an exact copy of any given text. It may remember it, but human brain can do the same.
You have to prove LLM code is derived work in the same way you prove human work is derived work: check the difference between the original work and the derived work.
20 nov 2025:
Trump accuses Democrats of ‘seditious behavior, punishable by death,’ for urging military to ignore illegal orders
From Trump account:
Hang them George Washington would
No, we do not agree. NONE of the democratic leaders calls for the execution of political opponents like Trump does. Both sides apply only to single nobody in the crowd, but I do not care about those to be honest. Those will always exists. Both sides is just a way to distract from the fact the sitting president is asking for the hanging of the senators of the opposition.
They should just change the mission of the enterprise to “explore strange new fiction genres”.
Star Trek is now just an empty shell to fill with anything the writer wants to experiment with.
A silly, out of place, episode is fine sometimes, but there is nothing left apart from stale tropes and theater for the sake of it.
This is not the first time that strange new worlds is breaking with reality in a way that is unusual for Star Trek. I am starting to treat more and more start trek like Star Wars: technology and science is just magic with technobabble. And this is very sad. Should not be that difficult to make it more realistic.
And this is not just complaining I want realism in fantasy. This is the author breaking the series canon because of laziness.
If Walmart was displaying a special category “for use in the war with Iran” with tactical clothing and gear, then I would have been less sympathetic to be honest. In this scenario Walmart promote items to send to the soldiers that kill the victims of a military invasion.
Yes, unknown. You do not care about when the reactor went online, but when the reactor design was finalized. This happened with CP0 design in 1970, 4 years before the messmer plan.
We knew about climate change in 1970, but we lacked reliable models and computational power to create good predictions at that time. Climate change was an hot scientific debate, not an applied principle in civil engineering design.
The only reactor not part of the messmer plan (1974) that was throttled down is the Chooz B on the Meuse river. In this case it is more of a political issue: under 1998 treaty between Belgium and France, the plant must curtail power if the river flow drop. Not as safety measure, but to preserve downstream flow to Belgium. This was not taken into account in the reactor design. The operation of the plant was restricted retroactively. The Chooz B plant uses evaporative towers to minimize heat discharge.
False,
Reactor production is throttled down to preserve the river environment, not because they cannot cool themselves. Only 18% reduction on the worst event.
Dismissing the biggest low carbon energy producer because 1970 engineers did not account for the unknown temperature extremes 20 years after the predicted lifespan of the reactor is silly.
You say lot of things that are correct and some that are not:
We need to invest in renewable technologies, batteries technology, and nuclear technology. We want all of them to succeed in decarbonizing the grid, as those technologies insists on different industrial bottlenecks on their deployment. China knows this, and is building nuclear reactors at rate never seen before, while doing the same for solar, wind and batteries. Renewable will be the bulk of energy production because they are cheap. Nuclear role is not the same as renewable. Nuclear is to provide dependable baseload when wind and solar do not produce enough. Nuclear, renewable and batteries together are cheaper and faster to deploy then any other combination, so it is good to continue investing in all of them.
Nuclear is certainly ready for climate change ahead. Nuclear is one of the tool to use to solve climate change. There is no doubt from the technical prospective. 1970 nuclear is still a tool, given they continue to extend the usable lifespan of the plan. This is not a technology problem: Palo Verde nuclear power plant works in the desert, by evaporating sewage water. This is not a problem at all for power plants near the sea.
I will be explicit: we should use nuclear to fight climate change, we should not destroy local environment to cheap out on building more carbon free power generation.
Nuclear produce tons on stable carbon free electricity. This stabilize electrical grid. Without it, we have to use something else to compensate renewable instability. Hydropower (if you are lucky), batteries (still expensive but becoming more and more viable) or fossil fuel plants.
We are talking 1970. Scientists lacked the numerical models and the computing capacity to make these predictions. To accuse civilian engineers to not take into consideration recent hot topics of environmental science that lacked, at the time, rigorous models is disingenuous.
The design lifespan for those reactors was 40 years. We are extending those past lifetime because it is cheaper to do even if we need to shut them down more and more often.
The infrastructure have not adapted because it is cheaper to build a new power plant or to shutdown existing one occasionally then to adapt old existing design.
I do not understand what is your point here.
Of that I agree. This is also a problem on western platforms like X for sure.
What is bias in that sentence?
TikTok is Chinese -> true China is under an authoritarian regime-> true Freedom of expression is constitutionally guaranteed in Poland -> true
Is the bias in the implication that authoritarian regimes may exploit freedom of expression to promote propaganda? I think is safe to assume this is also true. Not exclusive to authoritarian regimes, but true nonetheless for authoritarian regimes.
It is not twisting it. It is exactly like that. The problem is not the water level. The nuclear power plant can work in these condition. The hot water discharge would raise the temperature too much on top of existing higher temperatures in the river for the flora and fauna to survive. We are doing this to protect nature. There is no twisting here.
Uuuuh, dozens?! I am so scared by this blatant misuse of the New York City Hall employees! They should buy bots from Chinese bot farms like everyone else!
But more importantly, why does World Zionist has access to the IPs of X users and the IPs of New York City Hall?
zero chance
Swatch Scuba 200, user replaceable battery, up to 200m.
Before the “yes but apple is smarter/bigger battery” whatever excuses you find, this is a solved design problem. You use gaskets instead of glue. Glue is just cheaper.
Best thing is that the condition imposed by the US to reduce tariffs to import from the EU is for the EU to buy more American oil.