I liked poppy wars but it was a bit too relentlessly nihilist for me. I thought Babel was, if anything, better balanced in terms of presenting empire as a system where people who are not inherently out to harm others end up doing so anyway.
I read it, and I really enjoyed it. I will give a few reasons.
There are tons of spoilers here, by the way, you were warned.
References to the themes the work relates to including some specific events.
- Focus on language. The entire conceit of translation means there's lots of careful language in the book, which I enjoy reading.
- Theme. There are two major themes I can see that I enjoyed: on one hand, the theme of imperialism, with the British Empire making use of its power to oppress people abroad. This is certainly central. On the other hand, the operation of empire doesn't even help most British people themselves, hence the uprising. These themes are interesting to me.
- Subthemes. But there are a lot of subthemes, issue that make you think when reading the book. Just a couple of examples: brain drain, the way translators are plucked off their societies to serve empire; the interaction of relative privilege with relative oppression, in the way that the foreign-looking translators get treated at the party; the notion of language itself as an exploitable resource (more relevant in connection to AI and the use and exploitation of corpora); the weaknesses of imperial centralisation, which could also be a critique of the cloud (the way the silver bars are connected to teach other); and the whole thorny issue of white feminism, which is very sharply demonstrated by one particular character.
I also think there are very poignant situations in the book: the two brothers at odds, the reluctance to violence, the scene where the professor beats his pupil, the attempt to follow Muslim ethics and law while having to handle practical reality...
So in short, it was one of my favourite books in the last few years. It also illuminates the opium wars in a way that hasn't often been done before.
So it would still help optimising persuasion at scale (also known as lying to people to best et them to act against their interest). Why is this a good thing again?
It depends, but mostly no. And if that means some sites are not economically possible, so be it.
Very informative. On paragraphs 61 and following, it clearly explains why the Israeli claims on human shields are improper and how attacks are not maintaining the principles of proportionality, distinction, and so on.
So, not super sure what this is or how this works. Is the idea that you run the cgi, it sets up static files, and it responds to AP requests like follows, mentions, boosts and such? I realise lots of people don't like long docs but I didn't really understand the use case very well.
Apparently the problem is due to an incompatibility between the use of certain libraries (winapi and windows-sys) which use different versions of COM. At least so I deduce from the documentation I've read.
There's a workaaround:
On Cargo.toml, use.
[build-dependencies]
embed-manifest = "1.3.1"
And on the root of the project (not the src dir) create a build.rs file with the following content:
use embed_manifest::{embed_manifest, new_manifest};
fn main() {
if std::env::var_os("CARGO_CFG_WINDOWS").is_some() {
embed_manifest(new_manifest("Contoso.Sample")).expect("unable to embed manifest file");
}
println!("cargo:rerun-if-changed=build.rs");
}
This embeds a manifest together with the executable, solving the issue.
Not that I expect a lot of consistency from imperialists, but essentially the same lines of argument can be used regarding the Russian Federation.
An advisory opinion would effectively settle Israel’s “bilateral dispute” without the state’s consent.
Ditto for .ru and .ua.
The court is not equipped to examine a “broad range of complex factual issues concerning the entire history of the parties’ dispute”.
Same thing, especially if we get back to the formation of the Soviet Union, independence referenda, and so on.
An advisory opinion would conflict with existing agreements between the parties and negotiation frameworks endorsed by the UN.
This would be Minsk I and II.
The request is not appropriate as it asks the court to “assume unlawful conduct on the part of Israel”.
Ditto.
IMO the hardest part is the legal side, and in fact I'm not very clear how MS skirted that issue other than through US lax enforcement on corporations. In order to have a db like this one must store stuff that is, ordinarily, illegal to store. Because of the use of imperfect, so-called perceptual hashes, and in case of algorithm updates, I don't think one can get away with simply storing the hash of the file. Some kind of computer vision/AI-ish solution might work out, but I wouldn't want to be the person compiling that training set...
I generally agree, though I could be convinced of recurring payment in the case of high speed APIs that need a lot of updates to keep working. Chasing an API can be a lot of work.
Of course, a solution to that is having an up-front payment and letting people update as they wish--if there's new value in the new releases presumably they will.
I find it impossible not to see it as a symmetric situation. The notion the US is restricting access to chips for natsec reasons may be true, if that includes restricting Chinese economic and technical development to maintain its hegemony. That China responds in kind is not only to be expected, but also fair from any possible neutral stance. The special pleading is especially apparent here. "No, it's different when they do it to us because we're the good guys." Really?
modulus
joined 2 years ago
Advertising, cryptocoin shit, pay to play... This is an awful idea.