A bit sad that Turing's machine isn't mentioned anywhere in their pages – but maybe I just missed the mention.

I'm not KokiKoi, but it'd be cool if you can help him. You can get in touch either through the Discord link at the bottom of his page: https://kokikoi.github.io/The-Koi-Site/ or maybe submitting an "issue" on their GitHub repo: https://github.com/KokiKoi/The-Koi-Site

Cheers!

“I can’t follow Mr. Trump,” McKellen added at the time. “I don’t always understand what he says and when I do, I have to admit later that I got it wrong because he changed his mind or changed his mind about what he said. He’s a very bad communicator, at least to me. Get more straightforward, Donald. And then we can take you seriously.”

🤣

Something feels fishy... The user who made this pull request has more than doubled his contributions to various repositories since January (from 20–400 to more than 1100), and this is his first pull request in the systemd repo.

There's an ongoing protest against this on GitHub, symbolically modifying the code that would implement this in Chromium. See this lemmy post by the person who had this idea, and this GitHub commit. Feel free to "Review changes" --> "Approve". Around 300 people have joined so far.

How some Linux developers defeated (for now) the new OS age-verification laws. Long live those Linux developers, who "heavily criticized the mandates", made public statements, and contacted the legislators.

Because other Linux developers, instead, immediately bent over backwards to start implementing changes towards accommodating those laws; for sure they didn't heavily criticize the mandates, nor make public statements, nor contact the legislators.

From this github comment:

If you oppose this, don't just comment and complain, contact your antitrust authority today:

• US:
  • https://www.ftc.gov/...
  • antitrust@ftc.gov

• EU:
  • https://competition-policy.ec.europa.eu/...
  • comp-greffe-antitrust@ec.europa.eu

• UK:
  • https://www.gov.uk/...
  • general.enquiries@cma.gov.uk

• India:
  • https://www.cci.gov.in/antitrust/
  • https://www.cci.gov.in/filing/atd

• Canada:
  • https://www.competitionbureau.gc.ca/...

A reminder also to boycott, as much as possible, those thirteen major publishers – most or all of which are stealing from academia:

APRESS MEDIA, LLC; CENGAGE LEARNING, INC.; ELSEVIER INC.; HACHETTE BOOK GROUP, INC.; HARPERCOLLINS PUBLISHERS LLC; JOHN WILEY & SONS, INC.; MCGRAW HILL LLC; BEDFORD, FREEMAN & WORTH PUBLISHING GROUP, LLC D/B/A MACMILLAN LEARNING; MACMILLAN PUBLISHING GROUP, LLC; PEARSON EDUCATION, INC.; PENGUIN RANDOM HOUSE LLC; SIMON AND SCHUSTER, LLC; AND TAYLOR & FRANCIS GROUP LLC

https://open-slum.org/

Really embarrassing also for the journals that published the papers – and which are as guilty. They take ridiculously massive amounts of money to publish articles (publication cost for one article easily surpasses the cost of a high-end business laptop), and they don't even check them properly?

Fantastic person.

Funny that the post closes with "thank you". So kind. I depend on K-9 Mail daily, so "thank you" from me doesn't cut the amount of indebtedness and gratitude I have to this person. Thank you! 🙏

Why not be a professional scientist by:

• adding "in mice" to the title;
• using modern statistical methods instead of continuously discredited procedures like p-values?

Well-fought ProtonVPN.

The Paris court must have a strong taste of sht in their mouths from licking the media companies' ases...

Well done, Joachim! 🙌

The campaign has irked some recipients. “In terms of dialog within a democracy, this is not a dialog,” said Lena Düpont, a German member of the European People’s Party group and its home affairs spokesperson, of the mass emails.

Funny comment, seeing how EU was not even planning a referendum to check whether the majority of EU citizens approve such a proposal or not. EU did not even think of a dialogue with the citizens.

And funny how the article presents the proposal as something against sexual child-abuse material. As if abusers really used normal chat apps to make such exchanges...

The usual misleading sensationalistic title. It isn't the "shape of the electron" at all. A less misleading – but still not quite correct – explanation is that they have determined the statistical distribution of electron quantum states in a material. Very roughly speaking, it tells us where we're more or less likely to find an electron in the material, and in what kind of state. Somewhat very distantly like a population density graph on a geographical map. Determining such a population density doesn't mean "revealing the shape of a person".

The paper can also be found on arXiv. What they determine is the so-called quantum geometric tensor. I find the paper's abstract also misleading:

The Quantum Geometric Tensor (QGT) is a central physical object...

but it's a statistical object more than a "physical" one.

It's a very neat and important study, and I don't understand the need to be so misleading about it :(

This is actually already implemented, see here.

One reported feedback there is brilliant:

At first glance, the proposed regulation might appear to be just another flawed attempt to balance security and privacy. But a closer look, especially at the High-Level Group (HLG) advice the EU cites as a foundational source, reveals something far more dangerous. Start with this: when German MEP Patrick Breyer requested the names of the individuals behind the so-called High-Level Group that drafted this sweeping proposal, the EU responded with a list where every single name was blacked out. A law that would introduce unprecedented surveillance powers across Europe is being built on recommendations from an anonymous and unaccountable group. In any democracy, this would be a scandal. In the European Union, it is an outright betrayal of public trust. According to digital rights organization EDRİ, "The HLG has kept its work sessions closed, by strictly controlling which stakeholders got invited and effectively shutting down civil society participation." In short, the process was deliberately closed off to public scrutiny, democratic debate, and expert dissent. Civil society was excluded while powerful lobbyists shaped one of the most consequential digital laws of our time behind closed doors. A blunt overreach of state power: Universal identification and data retention, every click, message, and connection must be logged under your legal name, turning the entire population into perpetual Suspects. Encryption smashed: providers must supply data "in an intelligible way" (Rec 27.ii), forcing them to weaken or bypass end-to-end encryption whenever asked. Backdoors by design: hardware and software makers are ordered to bake permanent law-enforcement access points into phones, laptops, cars, and loT devices (Rec 22, 25, 26). Privacy shields outlawed: VPNS and other anonymity tools must start logging users or shut down. Criminalized resistance: services or developers who refuse to spy on their users face fines, market bans, or prison (Rec 34). No one exempt: the rules cover every "electronic communication service", from open-source chat servers to encrypted messengers to vehicle comms systems (Rec 17, 18, 27.ii). A mass surveillance law, drafted in secrecy by unknown actors, with provisions that go beyond what we see in many authoritarian regimes. And yet, the European Commission is advancing it as if it's routine policy work. The European Commission must halt this process immediately. No law that enables this scale of surveillance, especially one built in the shadows, should ever be allowed to pass. Europe must not become a place where privacy dies quietly behind closed doors. This threatens the fundamental rights of every citizen in the Union.

This image/report itself doesn't make much sense – probably it was generated by chatGPT itself.

1. "What makes your job exposed to GPT?" – OK I expect a list of possible answers:
   • "Low wages": OK, having a low wage makes my job exposed to GPT.
   • "Manufacturing": OK, manufacturing makes my job exposed to GPT. ...No wait, what does that mean?? You mean if my job is about manufacturing, then it's exposed to GPT? OK but then shouldn't this be listed under the next question, "What jobs are exposed to GPT?"?
   • ...
   • "Jobs requiring low formal education": what?! The question was "what makes your job exposed to GPT?". From this answer I get that "jobs requiring low formal education make my job exposed to GPT". Or I get that who/whatever wrote this knows no syntax or semantics. OK, sorry, you meant "If your job requires low formal education, then it's exposed to GPT". But then shouldn't this answer also be listed under the next question??

1. "What jobs are exposed to GPT?"
   • "Athletes". Well, "athletes" semantically speaking is not a job; maybe "athletics" is a job. But who gives a shirt about semantics? there's chatGPT today after all.
   • The same with the rest. "Stonemasonry" is a job, "stonemasons" are the people who do that job. At least the question could have been "Which job categories are exposed to GPT?".
   • "Pile driver operators": this very specific job category is thankfully Low Exposure. "What if I'm a pavement operator instead?" – sorry, you're out of luck then.
   • "High exposure: Mathematicians". Mmm... wait, wait. Didn't you say that "Science skills" and "Critical thinking skills" were "Low Exposure", in the previous question?

Icanhazcheezeburger? 🤣

(Just to be clear, I'm not making fun of people who do any of the specialized, difficult, and often risky jobs mentioned above. I'm making fun of the fact that the infographic is so randomly and unexplainably specific in some points)