So an EU-backed distro could be the same. Yes, they would fund maintainers, but their own maintainers, not maintainers of upstream distros.
So an EU-backed distro could be the same. Yes, they would fund maintainers, but their own maintainers, not maintainers of upstream distros.
How much of Ubuntu’s funding goes to supporting debian? I actually don’t know.
I don’t, for example, see Ubuntu listed here: https://www.debian.org/partners/
Well, what better way to embrace FOSS than dismissing the efforts of all the existing distro maintainers? Welcome to the community, guys. Good luck building your cathedral next to the bazaar!
How about they instead work together with the distros and create a way of certifying a distro as gov-ready?
We found the solutions a long time ago - it’s just that nobody wanted to implement them.
I think it’s quite clear that we did.
Exactly, and this is assuming that that detail was even in the photograph; I am only guessing - OP didn’t say so.
I don’t even know how widely it would be known to Brits, although Stonehenge has been in the news recently, on account of people throwing paint on it and bothering the lichen, so it might have been mentioned in those news reports.
I wrongly said that the Stonehenge photo was a test - OP said it was a training course.
If there were people in the photo conducting a celebration, that would let you know that it was the solstice, because people aren’t allowed near the stones at other times.
I doubt, though, that that is common knowledge to anyone from outside of the UK, so whoever designed that test has an unconscious bias.
They don’t only say static types. They add classes, inheritance, subtyping, and virtual calls. Mind you, the difference between the last 3 is quite subtle.
So, since I’ve started nit-picking, Self is also OO and has prototype-based inheritance (as does javascript, but I’m not sure I’d want to defend the claim that javascript is an OO language).
In this post I use the word “OOP” to mean programming in statically-typed language
So Smalltalk is not object-oriented. Someone tell Alan Kay.
If AIs are to find the solution for us, we need one really smart one, not many AIs that are similarly smart to existing ones. He is proposing building more data centres, ie. the latter option.
If we can spot these trends while working 9-5, then an idiot can probably spot them if they spend 40 hours a week on it.
PieDock
We know perfectly well that the art is behind glass and will not be damaged because they did it before. So it’s complete nonsense to say that it will potentially destroy the art.
That is the error that the model made. Your quote talks about the causes of these errors. I asked what caused the model to make this error.
Sure, but which of these factors do you think were relevant to the case in the article? The AI seems to have had a large corpus of documents relating to the reporter. Those articles presumably stated clearly that he was the reporter and not the defendant. We are left with “incorrect assumptions made by the model”. What kind of assumption would that be?
In fact, all of the results are hallucinations. It’s just that some of them happen to be good answers and others are not. Instead of labelling the bad answers as hallucinations, we should be labelling the good ones as confirmation bias.
Cities are inherently car centric. Think about a typical crossroads controlled by lights. When the light is green, a car can enter the junction and can then leave in any direction (sometimes it has to wait for oncoming traffic, but it can always leave when the lights change again). When the light goes green for a pedestrian at the same junction, they can cross 1 road only.
Fundamentally, the cars are in the middle. They don’t have to cross pavements (or cycle lanes) to turn. Everyone else has to cross the road.
Of course, there are exceptions, where a junction has been designed so that, for example, pedestrians can cross diagonally. Likewise the cycle lane sometimes continues across the junction, but mostly doesn’t.
Runs debian unstable. Shuts down his machine every year or so.
The email says that you can do it. It doesn’t say that you can do it without purchasing the upsell option.
The author mentions that some of the changes broke things, but it’s a long way into the article before the word “test” appears. It’s only point 6/7 of his recommendations.
Making changes with no test coverage is not refactoring. It’s just rewriting. Start there.
They are going to spend those 4 years doing everything they can to fix the next election as well. Gerrymandering, voter intimidation, you name it. By all means hide in bed to get over the shock but, if you stay there, you’ll need to stay there more than 4 years.