personally I think it's because of models trained so hard to be good at Math and Coding with reinforcement learning, which makes them kind of crazy hard reasoners, and bad for casual discussion
Only a MSFT employee can say for sure what their employment contract is these days, but I found an old court case where they used pretty standard “at will” language.
That's very different. That was them rescinding a job offer before a 'real' contract had been signed in something explicitly stating that it was not a contract of employment, and was also fully contingent on them passing a criminal background check - which the applicant failed. So they're losing in both at will, and by the terms of the contract. They still got sued, because people gonna people, but it's not related to a normal Microsoft employment contract.
Maybe I should’ve been more clear. Your argument above relies on “I’d be shocked if…” which is not evidence in and of itself.
Most American employees are at-will, and the contract in the MSFT lawsuit above was an at-will contract which is why they could be terminated, as you said.
Unless you can provide some other evidence that MSFT employees at not at will, it seems reasonable to believe they are, in which case providing the generous severance they did was not legally required.
A Microsoft employee chimed in elsewhere and mentioned that their contract had a clause that they could only be terminated for a set level of compensation, which is exactly what this buyout is offering. At-will, at least as I am using it, implies the ability to terminate a contract by other side without consequence. That is not the case for Microsoft even if they aren't constrained to only for-cause dismissal.
In Qwen 3.5, 75% of the layers are linear attention. I think the theory is that linear attention is usually enough, but some regular attention layers help to handle more sophisticated long-range relationships.
There is a Rick and Morty episode where Rick opens up a store that removes the curses from free items the Devil is handing out.
(Surprisingly, the Devil does not consider lawyering up, which is odd because I would expect the Devil to be pretty familiar with lots of lawyers. It’s fiction of course.)
It would be great to use AI to do something analogous with these spy TVs. I would be very interested in stripping the “smart” crap out of my TV to turn it into a kiosk.
If only. The EFF has been harping about this for literally decades. The DMCA in the US and similar anti-circumvention laws around the world (primarily EU) make doing that a serious crime, with punishments well beyond any conceivable impact to society at large.
The workers don’t seem to be pacifists. They seem to be opposed to some combination of genocide, autonomous weapons, privacy, or the military industrial complex.
Checks and balances on the ability to wage war are not a bad thing, and given the popularity of the US’ most recent entanglement I’d imagine most Americans would prefer more checks, not fewer.
At the risk of being overly reductive, a story is newsworthy if the editor decides it is. So one question you could ask is, why did the BBC editor think this was newsworthy?
Exactly. The purpose of news is not to inform you. It's to present you with a view of the world carefully curated to shape your beliefs. The BBC is notorious for their biases, but all major media channels serve the same purpose.
When they use the word "killed" (actively, by whom) or "died" (passively as if by chance), when they choose to highlight an event, downplay it, or ignore it altogether - the deeper question is not about the event itself, but the motivation behind its presentation. What do they want you to believe?
And it's untrue that "all major media channels serve the same purpose". Fox News serves very different purposes than Russia Today or Al Jazeera or NPR or …
What is true is that all media channels serve their own purposes.
I mean I'm just some dev so I'm far from a media expert, but wouldn't a story focused on the AI in warfare itself be vastly more interesting than 2 Non-American dev's who quit over it?
I don’t really understand. Dark matter is in most galaxies interacting gravitationally, but not these three. Their idea is that somehow there was a collision event which stripped the galaxies of their dark matter, because the regular matter got tangled up but dark matter somehow didn’t.
But if dark matter is also interacting gravitationally, why wouldn’t it also be tangled up? And is that something we have seen in other collisions ever?
> But if dark matter is also interacting gravitationally, why wouldn’t it also be tangled up?
Friction between regular matter causes it to lose energy and thus velocity. Dark matter doesn't have self-interaction outside of gravity, so it just keeps going.
the Bullet Cluster makes for a good comparison, there's a good image of it in the article. the bulk of the 2 galaxy clusters continued on but left behind 2 clouds of inter-cluster gas
my first impression was this could actually be a counterexample, because there we can see the heavy, dark matter-full clusters continuing on their trajectories at full speed whereas the gas slowed down and is being left behind. compared to these 3 lightweight galaxies which seem to be alone, rather than trailing behind their dark matter-hosting parents
but perhaps these 3 _are_ going slower than their full-scale origin galaxies. I would stake my view as a layman on whether anyone can find the dark matter galaxies that spawned these farther along their expected trajectories
Well there’s at least two reasons people might not buy your cake: they don’t want cake, or the cake is bad.
For the first group, it doesn’t matter how good your cake is. If you spend a year perfecting it, you won’t sell them any more cakes. And for many products, this group is basically 100% of customers.
reply