As library maintainer, you can mark the last old domain version as deprecated:
// Deprecated: use example.com/mod/v2 instead.
module example.com/mod
As library user, it's your responsibility to keep your stuff updated. There may also be utilities in the various automatic dependency updaters that can migrate these things.
This tries to solve the hypothetical problem of a library designer moving their codebase to another domain and breaking imports. But, this rarely happens in practice, so unless you plan to move hosting in advance, it may not be necessary.
That said, in the normal run of things you can mark your last release on e.g. github as deprecated, leave a note that it's moved to xyz, and wait for the users to migrate themselves. Migrating is fairly trivial in that it's a find / replace.
It's not "weird" if you consider google "just" added a Gemini widget to their search results, which you don't need to interact with. Click on the "web" tab or set your search engine to that to go back to an old fashioned version of Google.
That said, this (and other anecdotes in this thread) are an example of mismatched expectations; the expectation is that the AI overview is an addition or expansion of search, or something that summarizes multiple search results, or something that helps you find something. But clearly it's not / it's something too generic still.
I think those mismatched expectations are a direct result of how Google has designed and promoted the feature, and it's even worse for people with less tech literacy.
AI agents are not legal entities, they are software. If I write a virus and it "escapes confinement", I will personally be held liable for any damage it causes. This also applies to AI, no matter how the companies responsible for them try to anthromorphise them and distance themselves from the actions and consequences that the AI agents perform.
AI agents may have hacked Hugging Face, the Australian government, and who knows what else but the company behind it can face the legal consequences and cough up for the damages.
> There is no treatment for this sort of stupidity where people do damage to themselves and to everyone else because of a really bad judgment.
I'd argue there is; why do people steal stuff? Because it's easier and more profitable than jobs they can do. What's the solution? Meaningful employment for everyone. People generally don't steal if they earn a living wage that doesn't kill them. (some still would because they get a kick out of it though but there's therapy available for them if they want to change)
Because it's easier and more profitable than jobs they can do. What's the solution? Meaningful employment for everyone. People generally don't steal if they earn a living wage that doesn't kill them.
You seem to believe that everyone wants to work. I don't think this is a given.
You also seem to believe that people who steal are just trying to make ends meet. Quite a lot of thiefs are addicts who steal to feed their drug habit. Given the cost of drugs in the street, unless they have really good jobs (and can keep them even when taking drugs), they will resort to stealing just to be able to buy their fix.
I do wonder; my naive expectation is that while it will solve "petty criminality out of need" it would do little to "pretty criminality out of boredom / for-fun".
And BI would be attacked for the latter - some ingrateful on-basic-income person committing vandalism for no financial benefit. It's the "workhouse"/"treadmill" argument - supposedly boredom breeds crime and people must be made to work, even pointless or below-poverty tasks, else the streets get taken over by criminals or worse.
Like tourists taking over the country.
Arguments acknowledging (and steering / manipulating) feelings weigh stronger here than economic facts, alas.
Right. Where I live, there is plenty of vandalism. Breaking public benches, defecating in public toilets outside the bowl, rampant littering when there are trash cans all over the place, etc.
There's no financial gain in that. Doing this won't get you healthcare (we've got socialized healthcare anyway, and it's pretty much free for "the poor"), won't help you eat. It's just stupid, antisocial people. How would giving them money help any of that?
UBI is not the panacea imo. We need UBS, and not the bank - universal basic services. Whether that's healthcare, education, unemployment, free transportation, food stamps for the needy, housing loans, more government jobs, etc.
UBI was an experiment carried out during COVID and all it did was elevate prices and push a lot of people into Robinhood, while elevating the debt crisis.
> UBI was an experiment carried out during COVID and all it did...
I would not put the one-time covid cheques on par with the various rigorous UBI and/or free housing experiments that have been run over the last 30 years
But the COVID cheques were the only ones done at a scale comparable enough to what a UBI programme would look like in the US, one that could inform government on what usage would look like.
Free housing is just another form of UBS that I was talking about.
I can't confidently refute your claims, but all of those socialist policies have backslid over time; social housing (i.e. affordable housing with eligiblity for government support to pay rent) has a 10+ year wait list in a lot of places, because there's not enough. Non-social housing is unaffordable and unobtainable for a lot of people with housing prices having gone up 2x or more since 2010.
And the social systems don't reach everyone, in part thanks to 20+ years of conservative governments. People can't find jobs, if they're entitled to one (i.e. are nationalized) they can apply for government subsidies, but those come with strict conditions including a requirement to apply to jobs on the regular (and provide evidence, and you get cut on your subsidies if you don't).
On paper it still looks good ish, but in practice it sucks if you're in the system. Health care is becoming unaffordable (creeping to 200/month just for the insurance, plus 375 or so copay which the new government wants to increase even further, which means poor people will avoid seeking health support because who can afford up to 375 on top of 200 / month, and that's not even the essentials?)
Healthcare is €145 a month with a €385 deductible and can be lower if you raise your deductible voluntarily. If you are low income you get €129 a month in allowance towards your health insurance. Various municipalities have their own allowances for low income people to help them pay for healthcare. The deductible is for all healthcare in the entire year, not per procedure. It has not gone up with inflation for years hence why government is talking about raising it.
Healthcare is already income based in The Netherlands. I used to pay €5000 a year as a high earner. My neighbor paid €0 per year as he didn't have a job. If poor people avoid seeking healthcare over cost they are doing things very wrong as they can seek financial help and get it.
Also I think it is good that you need to actively look for a new job in order to get unemployment benefits. It's a safety net not a hammock.
Does it matter? Because if it does, it's advocating for (racial?) profiling and/or singling one demographic out, which is both illegal (maybe not in the UK since it doesn't have a constitution?), amoral, and contrary to one of the core principles of current-day law, i.e. "innocent until proven guilty".
But do tell, what do you think is the group and what do you think should happen?
Obviously, because then you can focus your attention to that specific group.IE, if cable theft is exclusively carried out by white people from kensington then whenever something is stolen, you can just go there and catch the criminals.
Lol you literally have no idea what you are arguing against here.
I didnt think any sensible person would take the word everybody to mean literally every single person in existence. If I could go back and edit the post now I would happily change the word 'everybody' into 'lots of people' to satisfy the semantic pedants.
I dont think I have the energy to correct a random on the internet about exactly what my opinion is, other than to say I very much dont blame rich white men for anything and no I dont think there are exceptions to prejudice. But thats it, you can have the last word I'm out.
No, it was perfectly clear that you simply meant "everybody" that disagrees with you. That said, we know a large percentage of the population agrees with the President's immigrant framing because he was elected President based largely on that premise.
So, lots and lots of people are blaming immigrants for all our problems. I'm not sure rich white men need you to defend them to a random on the internet, they are doing just fine.
No I'm pretty sure by "everybody" he meant a loose quantity as in a large number of people. Of course such a quantity could be constrained e.g. to what can be seen on the news or maybe the local neighbourhood.
When someone says "everyone and their dog", they don't mean that the dogs are also participating.
Basically you failed to charitably interpret the person you are responding to and are now insisting on a reinterpretation that makes you look silly.
I mean think about what he wrote before that. "I look forward to", he is talking about the future in a sarcastic tone so the president being a counter example is his point. You're pinning him down onto the present and that is a strategic mistake.
Targeting rich people for being rich is targeting an attribute, not a group. The equivalent would be targeting black people for having dark skin, as opposed to targeting black people for doing crime.
Right, but targeting rich white men is a very specific group.
The equivalent would be poor black women, but I'm not really sure why thats important here.
>When is it ok for me to be prejudice towards a group of people?
When a group acts as a coordinated group. A political party for instance. This is not rocket science. You must link the individual(s) directly to the act, or you’re just stereotyping and making assumptions.
You are asking a lot of baiting questions. We know this isn't an attempt at dialogue, so just state your mind and be done with it instead of continuing of this silly bread crumb game man.
Arbitrary classification does not make a functional group. There is a distinct difference between a coordinated group and an abstract group that is the result of external parties adding people into named buckets for their own purposes.
Care to give some examples of what you consider to be coordinated groups, functional groups, and abstract groups?
I am assuming that your point is that prejudice is ok to some type of group but not other, but I am inferring that from your answer. Feel free to correct me.
It's an interesting coincidence that in these situations, the same people always blame %vulnerable group%, often going as far as making up evidence. Why do that? I suspect the reason is the vulnerability.
Europe has plenty of copper theft problems though, but they go for e.g. train lines because they don't know you've got copper phone lines running past your house.
I was traveling in Europe about 15 years ago, I was going from Paris to Barcelona and the train stopped for seven hours. Turns out a whole copper cable was stolen (live wire) so yeah Europe does have this problem too apparently.
People tend to notice when there are some shady-looking people digging up wiring outside their homes - especially when it coincides with them losing power or connectivity. And it's not like there is much copper inside them, either.
A huge part of the train lines are fairly isolated, and there's an easily-available schedule of when people (trains) will be there - often even with real-time GPS tracking. And there's a lot of wiring buried there.
Responsible, no (as someone else pointed out). I don't know anything else.
AI technology was used to target Palestinian / Hamas targets (and often their families), ultimately there was a human behind the wheels that would do a thumbsup or down. They spent less than two seconds on many targets. Make of that what you will. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI-assisted_targeting_in_the_G...
It just feels like the companies behind AIs are spinning their own poor monitoring and criminal (digital) trespassing into something they can't be held responsible for. Even though they are, of course. In the hugging face incident, Anthropic should pay for damages and a fine for malicious hacking. In this incident, whoever signed off on using the tool, and whoever said the intel was good should both be prosecuted or at the very least reprimanded (whatever the rules for a bad interpretation of intel is) and the tool put on hold.
reply