fer
What makes that true, and not the propaganda about western degeneracy? What about the propaganda about Ukraine being ruled by Nazis? What about the propaganda about Ukraine being ruled by Jews? What about Russia being the defenders of the white race and traditional values? What about the propaganda about Ukraine just being a confused Russians? What about the propaganda about restoring the historical lands of Russia? What about the propaganda about Ukraine preparing to attack Russia? What about the propaganda about the supposed oppression of Russian speakers in Ukraine?
And ultimately, are you familiar with the term "firehose of falsehood"? Because unless you are really familiar with the subject and not just sprinkled by superficial propaganda, you might just believe the bits you agree with and ignore the rest, falling into the confirmation bias that Russian propaganda relies so much upon.
No, I'm saying that states are relatively free to agree or disagree with the US, at least until president 47. France faced no consequences, and countries like Nicaragua are on the opposite end of the geopolitcal spectrum with no particular interest in a war on the other side of the world.
Because whether Iraq or Afghanistan bear the historical hallmarks of imperialism is up to debate, especially with Afghanistan with clear casus belli, stated war objectives, and no intention to annex or directly control/govern the territory. The actual number of countries supporting either is a good metric on that; I think Afghanistan war had a much wider support for a reason. Putting both conflicts together is simplistic, if not disingenuous.
>France stood firmly inside a military alliance who’s members broke international law and disregarded human rights.
The USSR stood inside an economic and arguably military alliance with literal Hitler until 41. The USSR fed the Wehrmacht, fueled their tanks, and provided metals for their war machine. Mentioning this since you already mentioned you're on the left side of the spectrum. Can we call the USSR as subservient to Third Reich imperialism?
Breaking an alliance simply because an ally does something you don't agree with, while morally commendable, it is also simplistic. France didn't pull out, like nobody pulled out when France was committing atrocities in Algeria, or when Turkey invaded Cyprus; no Warsaw Pact countries left during Hungary 56, Albania did leave because of Prague 68 but only because of it being the last straw on their already strained relations, like CSTO countries aren't pulling out because of Russian imperialism in Ukraine, Georgia or Moldova. Armenia is trying to pull out only because the CSTO wasn't there when it was needed, that is, when the treaty doesn't address its very own points.
Alliances are born out of self-interest, not out of moral purity or consistency.
Iraq: Japan, Australia, Nicaragua, Philippines, Ukraine, Georgia... And I'm leaving like a dozen non-NATO countries, aligned AND unaligned with the US, that took part in the invasion or post-invasion missions. I don't agree with it, and while there were numerous lies to sell the invasion, equally numerous countries were unhappy about UNSCR 1441 being treated like toilet paper by the UN itself. Moreover, actual major NATO countries like Germany or France were diametrically opposed to the invasion and told the US to take a hike.
When you hold a hammer everything looks like a nail.
It's not. If you give it a reference implementation, and unless the LLM/agent cheats, you'd get the migration minus undocumented/untested behavior. I've done that with different domain, migrating existing numerical code from Fortran to Rust. When working on the same codebase, agents routinely shit the bed unless given increasingly specific and concrete specs.
It's simply a spectrum between "make an airbnb for ants, make no mistakes" and providing an actual specification (and I consider an implementation to be such). What you don't provide and account for from the beginning will be paid in tokens later. That puts a price label on technical debt, which is interesting in itself, and a perverse incentive for AI companies.
If someone from Google Maps or LinkedIn team is here, please, when I take a screenshot it's because I want to a screenshot, not share the friggin location/post.
Not sure who got the idea that it was useful, it isn't.
1. Not a war
2. A defensive/protective operation.
The reason being the article 353 of Russian Criminal Code, under which planning or waging a war of aggression carries a prison sentence.
https://crimeofaggression.info/selected-documents/
Not that the law matters in Russia, but defence in depth I guess.
I still don't understand how a full focus stealability debounce is not the norm. If I am in the middle of writing, or interacting with one UI bit in any way, no other app should be able to steal focus, full stop. Add an annoying popup if you want, make angry computer noises, flash icons, I don't care. 99.9, if not 100% of the time, it's completely unrelated to what I'm doing and can absolutely wait. While some OSs have something along these lines, they also give the tools to bypass it (I'm looking at you, Cisco AnyConnect! Being connected after clicking on connect is not an emergency!)
Imagine you're working in a terminal and an app decides to steal STDIN. Why do we accept that for a GUI?
Not sure how diffusion models work in detail so consider this wet neural slop, but I feel like the training data had a sizable portion of it of high quality art, photography, design, and the models captured mostly the polish: the crispiness, the geometry, the contrast: they're after all computable features. It's more difficult to capture the meaningful blurs, the deliberate deviations, and the organic rule breaking. They're properties much harder to "featurize" for, and rely on tags/labeling/descriptions, etc of variable quality.
By all means you can get that with AI anyway, but it also requires you to understand the art itself, and describe it in a way the model produces satisfactory results.