Main issue comes from GDPR. When one uses the consent basis for collecting and using information it has to be a free choice. Thus one can’t offer “Pay us and we collect less information about you”. Hence “pay or consent” is blatantly illegal. Showing ads in generic? You don’t need consent. That consent is “I vote with my browser address bar”. Thing just is nobody anymore wants to use non tracked ads…

So in this case DMA 5(2) is just basically re-enforcement and emphasis of previous GDPR principle. from verge

“exercise their right to freely consent to the combination of their personal data.”

from the regulation

2. The gatekeeper shall not do any of the following:
   (a) process, for the purpose of providing online advertising services, personal data of end users using services of third parties that make use of core platform services of the gatekeeper;
   (b) combine personal data from the relevant core platform service with personal data from any further core platform services or from any other services provided by the gatekeeper or with personal data from third-party services;
   © cross-use personal data from the relevant core platform service in other services provided separately by the gatekeeper, including other core platform services, and vice versa; and
   (d) sign in end users to other services of the gatekeeper in order to combine personal data,

unless the end user has been presented with the specific choice and has given consent within the meaning of Article 4, point (11), and Article 7 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679.

surprise 2016/679 is… GDPR. So yeah it’s new violation, but pretty much it is “Gatekeepers are under extra additional scrutiny for GDPR stuff. You violate, we can charge you for both GDPR and DMA violation, plus with some extra rules and explicity for DMA”.

I think technically already GDPR bans combining without permission, since GDPR demands permission for every use case for consent based processing. There must be consent for processing… combining is processing, needs consent. However this is interpretation of the general principle of GDPR. It’s just that DMA makes it explicit “oh these specific processing, yeah these are processing that need consent per GDPR”. Plus it also rules them out of trying to argue “justified interest” legal basis of processing case of the business. Explicitly ruling “these type of processing don’t fall under justified interest for these companies, these are only and explicitly per consent type actions”.

That is just its core function doing its thing transforming inputs to outputs based on learned pattern matching.

It may not have been trained on translation explicitly, but it very much has been trained on these are matching stuff via its training material. Since you know what its training set most likely contained… dictionaries. Which is as good as asking it to learn translation. Another stuff most likely in training data: language course books, with matching translated sentences in them. Again well you didnt explicitly tell it to learn to translate, but in practice the training data selection did it for you.

Well it could also be a lever or a switch.

Newer ever take Klarnas word for anything. They are the fine and Dandy company whose business model involved by routine fishing for customers bank authorization credentials.

Well difference is you have to know coming to know did the AI produce what you actually wanted.

Anyone can read the letter and know did the AI hallucinate or actually produce what you wanted.

On code. It might produce code, that by first try does what you ask. However turns AI hallucinated a bug into the code for some edge or specialty case.

Hallucinating is not a minor hiccup or minor bug, it is fundamental feature of LLMs. Since it isn’t actually smart. It is a stochastic requrgitator. It doesn’t know what you asked or understand what it is actually doing. It is matching prompt patterns to output. With enough training patterns to match one statistically usually ends up about there. However this is not quaranteed. Thus the main weakness of the system. More good training data makes it more likely it more often produces good results. However for example for business critical stuff, you aren’t interested did it get it about right the 99 other times. It 100% has to get it right, this one time. Since this code goes to a production business deployment.

I guess one can code comprehensive enough verified testing pattern including all the edge cases and with thay verify the result. However now you have just shifted the job. Instead of programmer programming the programming, you have programmer programming the very very comprehensive testing routines. Which can’t be LLM done, since the whole point is the testing routines are there to check for the inherent unreliability of the LLM output.

It’s a nice toy for someone wanting to make a quick and dirty test code (maybe) to do thing X. Then try to find out does this actually do what I asked or does it have unforeseen behavior. Since I don’t know what the behavior of the code is designed to be. Since I didn’t write the code. good for toying around and maybe for quick and dirty brainstorming. Not good enough for anything critical, that has to be guaranteed to work with promise of service contract and so on.

So what the future real big job will be is not prompt engineers, but quality assurance and testing engineers who have to be around to guard against hallucinating LLM/ similar AIs. Prompts can be gotten from anyone, what is harder is finding out did the prompt actually produced what it was supposed to produce.

Statistical photography aka computational photography aka supersampling. Statistically bin together number of smaller pixels to cut the amount of noise to create picture of a lower resolution than sensor level, but better quality.

Road or cycleway. Pedestrian only sidewalk is not place for bicycles or scooters due to their greater speed.

There is combined cycleway and walkways, but there the point is those are wider than mere sidewalks, so there is room for cycles and scooters to safely overtake pedestrians.

Also not only would they need more satellites, but satellites more densely in any area with multitude of customers. Which eventually hits RF interference saturation.

Radio signal has only so much bandwidth in certain amount of frequency band. Infact being high up and far away makes it worse. Since more receivers hit the beam of the satellite transmission. One would have to acquire more radio bands, but we’ll unused global satellite transmission bands don’t grow in trees.

Tighter transmitters and better filtering receivers can help, but usually at great expense and in the end eventually one hits a limit of “can’t cheat laws of physics”

Well he never won in the first place. This is the original final decision of him losing in the first place. What was “won” previously was SpaceX getting short listed as one of the companies to be seriously considered for award. Then followed the actual final full decision checks and SpaceX failed to meet criterion for the subsidy.

However this isn’t about your anecdotal experience. This is about what level of service they can guarantee as minimum and overall to meet the conditions of the subsidy.

I would also note this isn’t reinstatement matter. FCC refused to give them the subsidy in the first place with this decision. What SpaceX are trying to spin as reneg on previous decision is them making the short list of companies to be considered. Well, getting short listed is not same as being selected fully.

They passed the criterion for the short list check, but the final authorization and selection included more wide and more through checking on the promises of companies to meet criterion and SpaceX failed the more through final round of scrutiny before being awarded the subsidy.

Government having awarded bad money previously isn’t fixed by following up bad awards with more bad awards. SpaceX exactly failed since previously money was handed out too losely and FCC has tightened the scrutiny on subsidy awards to not follow up bad money with more bad money.

Nobody is prevented from buying Starlink, this just means Starlink isn’t getting subsidized with tax payer money.

There possibly is a pushers/braking truck attached to the rear of the Transporter.

Also one must remember on transporter it is about winning over rolling resistance rather than the weight. Doesn’t necessarily take that powerfull truck on flat ground to pull even great load.

Also turbine housing has lot of air and as equipment to be lifted to top of a mast, built with light weight in mind. Not for pulling it, but in thought of the crane that has to lift that thing dead load up.

Well even on not being rare, lynxes are stalking predators. Given what noisy clumsy travels us humans are and their keen senses, one is lucky to see a lynx. Since firstly they are always stalking or hiding just naturally and specially so hiding upon most likely spotting human way before human spots them. One could go right by one and not notice it. We aren’t on their menu given our size and not being normally encountered prey species. Also as stalkers unless it is something like a mother lynx protecting its young, it won’t make itself known. Far rather hides and let’s you pass without encounter. Since one less risk of the lynx getting injured in fight, if it can’t just hide away and go unnoticed.

Though on top of that some species of lynx are very endangered.

already enacted, vote went through in July. However the “come to force” of the earliest part of the regulation is 2025 and the replaceable battery mandate come to force date is 2027. However I would assume stuff starts going with replaceable battery 2025-2026, since by 2027 it’s illegal to not have that for on sale item. So one would transition year or two early to have ones retail and supply chains empty of the old non-replaceable stuff to avoid having unsold stock or get hit with punishment for being caught selling non regulation items*. So you want the replaceable battery products designed and in production before 2027.

Also one key I would point out, that is often left out. It doesn’t only cover phones. It covers pretty much all battery powered electronics. SO lots of those other small electronic gadget with built in Li-ions will start sprouting battery covers or possibly moving back to their old power of choice, banks of AAs. Since those are inherently replaceable. Well plus non-recycleables aren’t covered by the regulation. However also the maker can argue their green credibility with “well customer can put rechargeable AAs in it. Then it’s a replaceable battery product.”

* Well in reality one’s retail partners would refuse to accept the stuff for sale, since upon it being on sale at their shelf it’s now their ass on the firing line by regulators.

Also I would add inflation went up, prices jumped. Meaning not so much free spending cash any more. People might have previously had the cash to update phone, just for sake of update even without it being necessary. Now days? People have way more important things they have to spend more money on.

Well as per article yes, but 600$ is the reporting limit. If Ticketmaster, stubhub and so on has a reseller account with sales income of more than 600$ per year, they have to file it to IRS. Whether its single sale or thousands of separate small sales doesn’t matter.

Completely normal tax procedure. Pretty much all big such platforms of various fields stock exchanges, commodity markets etc. have such obligation ledges on them for avoidance of tax evasion.

Nor as second note is anyone being “punished”. Punishing is what happens on breaking law. This is business taxes, you make profits selling stuff, income taxes start applying. Normal cost of doing business in society for the services society provides (national military keeps the Mongol horde from wrecking your business and so on, transport atluthority builds roads to run business trucks on so the music tour entourage can get to the arena, so one can sell tickets to that conce for profit and son on).

Ahemm as I understand the previously license did have a “we don’t change this license on you” clause, which they removed shortly before this change. As I understand there is atleast possibility, that some existing customer developers might upon being pressed take unity to court over “you said you wouldn’t change the license fundamentally without our consent, we had a deal”.

What the exact language of that clause and would it hold in court challenge, I don’t know. Just heard one interviewed developer say something to affect of “hey they did have we don’t change the deal clause, which they sneak removed on pretty recent license update”.

I atleast as business would not agree to deal of “yeah we have a deal, except this deal allows us to change the deal however we want”.

It might mean having to do time limited or project limited deals, since on otherhand no provider would agree to “we have no room to change deal ever”. I would atleast in case of say game development expect clause for example “any fundamental license change must have 2 year announcement time for existing customer.” Such clauses are very common in “on-going basis contracts and deals”. Heck international treaties use such clauses “If you want to leave this treaty, you must give other treaty parties 1/2/3/5 year notice and for the duration of that notice period you are still bound by the treaty”.

So I would guess: If this ends ugly, there will be lawsuits over was the license change contractually legal, were the possibble change notices clear enough upon the main change being in itself legal and for example was some jurisdictions fair and good behavior clauses of national contract law itself violated. Was enough notice time given etc. Since one cant make any contrac or contract change whatever one likes, business contracts are always subservient to local contract law regulating what can be agreed, how and what amounts to stuff like informed consent, how contract terms can be changed and regulation on prohibition of underhanded or deceptive business practices.

I would also add… the part count hasn’t actually dropped overall maybe as much as people might think. Since… seats are parts, head rests are parts, doors are parts, windows are part, body panels are parts, suspension springs are parts. The mechanical drive train part count sure has gone down. There was many many valves and springs in engine and so on. However mostly the overall assembly line is still the same. The final assembly line doesn’t care “are we putting in fuel tank or battery pack”, “is the motor here electric or combustion one”, “oh these fuel lines are electric instead of fluid, well still pretty thick and stiff lines to run, wrangle in there you dastardly high voltage wire as thick as my thumb”.

People often forget most of the car… is the car, not it’s drivetrain. Drivetrain is there to move around the car, the cabin. Lot of effort and parts go in the cabin and it is often what sells the car, not the drivetrain. Many a car sale is decided on “hey honey, try these seats, these are really comfortable”. Instead on “is the 0-60 7.2 seconds or 5.3 seconds”. Can you fit the baby stroller in the back boot and so on sells cars. None of that changes, even though the mechanical drive train is completely different.

All the upholstery and final assembly department is still exactly same. Except the fuel tank and engine reverse weight. The electric motor weights less than the engine block, but that electric fuel tank sure has gained weight over the empty liquid one.

Heck it is say for example straight up the plan in Europe. Since say for example there is no getting away from IG Metal for all German makers. Since IG metal literally covers pretty much whole industrial manufacturing and so on.

So they just immediately went “IG Metal, workers of the company, now don’t go doing anything rash… we have retraining program planned”.

Remember this was what Herbet Diess of VW got in trouble in part. Saying to Wolfsburg of “large fraction of you should be just unceremoniously fired, we need more cost efficiency”. Though his main fall was the mismanagement of Cariad and software delay resulting. Which caused the cardinal sin of any big legacy car CEO… Announced launch and delivery dates were not kept. Out he goes unceremoniously.

I found it funny how some were going “The CEO is talking truth to power, the need to cut workers, don’t you understand”. You don’t do that in place like Germany. You can’t get away from IG Metall. They can make CEO’s life living hell, if “employee-employer” relations are not at least on tolerable stance. Even the comments were from union side of caliber CEO seems to be dumb and doesn’t understand how things are done here in Germany.

Work force is the main asset. Meaning retrain. Combustion engine labs will be soon instead studying most efficient heat pump setups, most efficient electric motor windings and most importantly Battery pack and cell optimization. The casting plant, that cast and machined engine blocks. Congratulations you are still casting “engine blocks”, only now these new engine blocks are called “electric drive unit housings”. Assembly people are moved from assembled double clutch gearboxes and engine valve trains to assembling electric drive units and battery packs. So on and so on. The gear cutters who cut transmissions, well we still need reduction gearings and say differentials and so on.

Oh no, unions wanting to expand the sectors industry they cover? How suprising. 😃

Ahemmm just pure “they be crafty”… Like did UAW keep their twitter X account just so they thought “Will Elon be stupid enough to revoke us”. Since it is clear sign of anti-union behavior by CEO of a car company by concrete act and well car company CEO can’t exactly do that with atleast potentially getting in trouble. It won’t suffice alone, but combine it with other actions by Tesla and UAW can argue “Tesla as company all the way to the CEO shows a consistent pattern of anti-union activity of actively hindering our union drives. That is supposed to be illegal”.

Atleast I think UAW doesn’t mind at all the publicity, this will cause for them “Automaker CEO revoked us, since all business is too conglomerized to too few hands and control way too much of the business”