What I want to see is a dating service where I can pledge some money to some charity. Everybody on the site can check what I've pledged, and I can release it anytime. The service can take their cut, fine.

Now when I meet somebody through the service, and we think it's serious, we can release that money. And we can check whether the other did too!

Sure there will still be profiles with people that don't pledge, because they're just testing the waters, or poor, or scammers. Whatever. Point is I can send a signal that at some point I want to be done with the service, and then pay them for that.

How can the service know that the users have really entered into a relationship?

Why would it need to? Users police themselves :-)

I don't think it's as easy as looking at open weight API prices. We don't know whether the operators are making a profit on all the hardware they bought. Maybe the prices we pay just cover electricity. And it's not even certain that running costs are covered by API prices: The operators may be siphoning content and subsidize from selling that.

In the current volatile environment, the API prices are more of a baseline where we can assume it can't be much cheaper to operate these models.

That doesn't make sense in this environment because everyone is compute constrained with huge backlogs they can't fulfill. If these inference providers aren't making any money, they'd simply sell their GPUs to those who are starved for compute.

This, to me, is the strongest argument to offer these slop generators. It provides an incentive to follow the robots.txt.

Exactly. You disobey robots file => we'll make your crawl gain a net negative.

I wouldn't call it cheating. But I have no trouble drawing lines that exclude some people, if that levels the field for a bigger group. In this case the female olympics would soon be known as the intersex olympics given the selection pressure. I can understand the decision to make the competiton more interesting by barring intersex people. No need to frame it as cheating though.

Since we don't actually do genetic tests at birth, this would only ocurr in the context of national qualifying, think about what the experience of someone who trains to be good enough to qualify for the Olympics, then gets this test and is told, "Sorry, you aren't really a woman. Too bad. No Olympics for you. Sorry you wasted all those years training."

How else should the person who just got that information interpret it except... Sorry, you're not really deserving, even though your score qualifies you. And what do call someone who has a score that qualifies but doesn't get to go?

And there are far more of people with this experience than the experience of being born and treated by society as a man and becoming an Olympic athlete as a woman.

I don't know the specifics in this case, but they can be biologically male and use the female gender. How would that conflict your point?

Just comparing genes, a male human is more closely related with all male chimps than with any female human.

Whoa hold your brush. US admin agency over wars that affect oil prices was very different in 2022 compared to 2026.

To me, how the death threat is phrased is not very important. What would you drop from the title to include that?

See suggestions above by me and others.

Please realize that Switzerland holds many votes per year. There is no big voting day where I have to go somewhere. I could go cast my ballot in person, but I can also fill out and send in my ballot in advance. That is entirely routine and part of my day like other paperwork.

The problem with e-voting is that it is much harder to validate. My paper ballot rests at a community building where it will be counted on the day of the vote. I can understand the process from start to finish in physical terms. Throw in a USB stick and anything could happen. It is possible we will never know what went wrong here.

This is a pattern I observe frequently where the text generator replaces very specific code comments with generic versions. Same for variable names that are written in blood.

I do wonder whether "semantic ablation" is the right term for what is going on. Ablation I think fits because it refers to the removal of layers. And yes they are semantic layers. But ablation refers to the process, not the result. So on its own shortening "ablation of semantic layers" to "semantic ablation" is problematic. It sounds like semantics are used for ablation. "Semantically streamlined" could capture the intended meaning but of course streamlining has a positive ring to it, where ablation sounds problematic as it should. I guess "semantic fusiform" is too obscure :-)