There has been a 2x and sometimes even 10x in PR size, measured in LoC...

But that's not really what we were promised.

Feeling like a spoiled little kid. FreeCAD and Blender had some really nice updates recently too.

Now just waiting on GIMP!

Unfortunately, Krita doesn't have the same use.

Yes.

OpenOffice, controlled by the Apache Foundation, and LibreOffice, controlled by the Document Foundation. No look in, since both are open source.

For a closed source solution use MS Office or Google docs.

Other open formats are excluded, hence it's a lock in to one specific format. This cripples innovation. For example, you can no longer use an app that uses an open markdown format in the German administration.

One of the slowest, most ineficient code bases I've ever worked on was in Go.

The mentality was "the language is fast, so as long as it compiles we're good"... Yeah that worked out about as well as you'd expect.

But that has nothing to do with the language.

Absolutely, and it's a good language when used properly. This was more of a problem with the hype surrounding it.

Every spring the numbers go up compared to the year before. That's interesting, no?

It's not interesting, it's expected.

Don't know about Spain, but in France we can be sent codes via SMS for things like 3d secure.

The government is why they are dropping their pledge.

https://apnews.com/article/anthropic-hegseth-ai-pentagon-mil...

That's because their government is asking for things that shouldn't be asked - again, no regulation, no oversight.

The government is forcing them to change their policy, by definition that is regulation and oversight.

Let's say that the government was forcing a company to change their overall right-to-repair or return policy in order to avoid being on a blacklist, would that not be seen as oversight and regulation?

Whether the regulation is legitimate or of benefit is a different argument.

You misunderstand - a government normally represents the people, we appoint them to well, govern, in our name. I understand how this is confusing in a place like the US, where the government often seems to represent the business (or lately a small group of poor examples of humanity), not the people.

This is condescending and fails to clarify your point at all. Are you saying there is no oversight or regulation in governance? Or that there is no oversight on AI? That a government pressuring a private company to change a policy is not regulation or oversight?

When we ask for regulation and oversight from the government, generally we mean regulation and oversight designed to help consumers or citizens and align the interests of institutions with that of the citizens. Yes the US trying to force Anthropic to let them use Claude in mass-surveillance and auto-kill robots is technically regulation, no its not good regulation. It seems to be designed to hurt the average citizen not help them. The oversight that might help here is say the courts or congress stepping in and facilitating a public discussion and legal review on the kind of surveillance the DOW intends to carry out. Is that so hard to understand without being spelled out?

Normally?

All governments are in the egg-breaking business some of the time. Most of them are most of the time. Some of them all of the time.

Very few are good at making omelettes.

Of course, but that is incoherent. Regulation and oversight is government.

No, it is a famously coherent concept over millenia.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

"Who will guard the guards themselves?" or "Who will watch the watchmen?"

>>A Latin phrase found in the Satires (Satire VI, lines 347–348), a work of the 1st–2nd century Roman poet Juvenal. It may be translated as "Who will guard the guards themselves?" or "Who will watch the watchmen?". ... The phrase, as it is normally quoted in Latin, comes from the Satires of Juvenal, the 1st–2nd century Roman satirist. ...Its modern usage the phrase has wide-reaching applications to concepts such as tyrannical governments, uncontrollably oppressive dictatorships, and police or judicial corruption and overreach... [0]

The point is a government that is not overseen by the people devolves into tyranny.

So yes, the point is to regulate the regulators and oversee the oversight committee.

Anthropic was happy to have it's AI used for military purposes, with two exceptions: 1) no automated killing, there had to be a human in the "kill chain" of command, and 2) no use for mass surveillance. This govt "Dept of War" is demanding Anthropic drop those two safety requirements or it threatens to make Anthropic a pariah. These demands by the govt are both immoral and insane. The "regulator and overseer" needs to be regulated and overseen.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quis_custodiet_ipsos_custodes%...

Alas, historically speaking, most governments have been tyrannies. In recent decades, some of them have been less so, or slightly more representative or transparent. I think in Switzerland they go to referendums often. Beyond that, once you vote for a party due an issue you deeply care about, they get to do whatever they want day to day, without citizens having a regular recourse to stop them. Yes people can go to the streets and fight the police that defends the government. But there's not a constitutional mechanism which is "citizen can push this button to override the senate and/or veto what the president wants" or "all security forces are subordinated first and foremost to citizen consensus on the area where they operate".

So, most of the time in history, we have failed to guard the guards and watch the watchers...

The government doesn't seem to be forcing them to do anything. They're saying that doing business with them is contingent upon changing the policy. So, they could simply stop doing business with the government.

Hegseth could come to my house today and tell me that I need to start kicking puppies in order to do business with him, and I could just say no. No coercion happening.

If they comply, they can continue bidding on government contracts.

If they refuse, they will be put on a national security blacklist, like for Huawei's telecommunication equipment.

Seems pretty forceful to me.

No, their Responsible Scaling Policy and their government contract are not related. The RSP governs how Anthropic itself behaves w/r/t developing, testing, and releasing new models. The contract was signed with stipulations around how the government can use existing models (No mass surveillance, no military targeting without a human in the loop) which Hegseth wants removed in a standoff that hasn't yet resolved.

It's incredibly useful to know what problems your users are facing. It doesn't necessarily mean fixing any one particular bug, rather should help prioritize future work.