This is just unfortunate ambiguous phrasing -- Tim Ferris (and anybody else happy on part time hours rather than taking a part time job because they can't find a full time job) doesn't get counted because they don't match the "and wants one" qualifier.
The white paper states the definition more precisely:
"LISEP’s definition of “True” employment or unemployment accepts the U-3 rate for comparison purposes, but modifies it by adopting two important stipulations. The first stipulation deals with the workweek. To be employed for the purposes of LISEP’s true employment concept, an individual must either have a full-time job
(35+ hours per week) or have a part-time job but no desire to be full-time (e.g., students). The second stipulation is that an individual must earn at least $20,000 annually."
The Severn Valley railway is about to start a trial where you can buy a standard railway network ticket to Bewdley which is then valid on the SVR on special purpose trains for the Kidderminster to Bewdley section; some of those will be steam. I think if that trial becomes a permanent operation it would count.
Yes, and the UK's industry body - Rail Delivery Group - has thoroughly screwed up distribution of the timetable data for this trial... so no online retailers (with the exception of BR Fares) will be selling tickets for the operation. Hardly a fair trial.
Yes, though I think it's being positioned as a commuter service for the people of Bewdley to get to Birmingham and back rather than for visitors to get to Bewdley.
FWIW, I have always and still do enjoy reading fiction, and I never visualize what's happening in the book. I just read the words and enjoy the story...
My understanding was that a pram is used for a younger child, they are laid flat. A pushchair/buggy for an older child, they sit. Language is often used incorrectly however.
I think it's reasonable to complain that the system doesn't have an "important but not urgent" message category (which might e.g. have the same "window pops up that you have to dismiss" UI but trigger whatever your usual text-message notification sound/vibration is rather than the VERY LOUD siren).
And given that the system does not have that "important but not urgent" category it's also reasonable to complain when the government uses the "urgent" notification system for something that is not urgent.
It caused me to turn off "severe" alerts (leaving "emergency" enabled).
In this case, I think the problem was that it was urgent (multiple fire services were on the verge of being overwhelmed, and that was considered to pose an immediate threat to critical infrastructure) and it was the severity that was arguable.
(I also only have the extreme alerts enabled - I've been disabling severe ones since the system was introduced. If there's a storm I'm likely to be staying inside anyway!)
I see from the court PDF that the process here involves Spirit giving the data to a "Deidentification Agent" (a third party firm that Google selects and pays for) who is responsible for stripping out things that would link data to any particular person before passing the data on to Google. Is that a standard thing, such that everybody in this transaction would have said "yes, put in the usual clauses about deidentifying the data" and multiple firms offer this service, or is it something that they custom-specified for this "we want the data for AI" transaction?
(The PDF mentions "the standard for deidentification set forth under the California Consumer Privacy Act", which suggests this is all pretty well legislatively understood.)
Seems the answer is “no” to the first part of your question. From the filing:
> For example, one initial bid requested certain customer list information; however, by the first round of the Auction, the most competitive bidders had agreed to bid on an asset schedule that expressly excluded PII.
You wouldn't want to hard-wire the deidentification company's name into the contract between Google and Spirit. Otherwise, if the deident-company happens to go bankrupt or otherwise be unable to do the work then you'd need to re-do the Google-Spirit contract, which would be a massive pain. And you don't want to make "we can sign this with Spirit now" be dependent on "we have first signed the deal with the deident-company". So I think it's reasonable that the contract says "one or more third parties acceptable to or designated by Buyer" rather than being specific here.
it's one regex. if you detect name, DoB, ssn, credit card, email... you remove it. done
there's zero concern if you can associate N flights can only match one person when looked in aggregate, etc.
it's mostly pro forma to pretend you're following some regulation when you're obviously not.
if anyone has a data company and legal connections to demand that a higher level of care be applied, i can charge my hours very cheaply to helpe you make this deal truly anonymous for passengers.
They will definitely be selecting the lowest bidder for this. Or perhaps a more expensive bidder if they can find one whose proprietary scrubbing technology is “a half dozen regexes our intern thought up”.
Well, it was originally created for language learning. With vocabulary there really is so much of it that you're better off learning the stuff that sticks and moving on from the handful of items that just don't. In some other fields you really do need to memorise the whole set of items, but that's just never going to happen for second language vocab.
The other thing about leeches is that they're a sign that you probably want to try to change something about the way you're trying to learn them, because what you're doing now is obviously not working for those things.
This is the way general resolutions in Debian generally work. There's a lot of pre-vote discussion where different people and groups propose and draft their preferred options, to produce what they feel is the best expression of their position. If you can get enough seconders for your proposal it goes on the ballot, with the text you chose and your seconders agreed with. There isn't any requirement for the options to use consistent terminology or avoid overlap, and no overarching editorial process to impose consistency (which would be tricky anyway in cases like this where terminology choices and overall framing can be part of the disagreement between people.)
Neither choice 7 nor 8 attempt to forbid packaging of any upstream project with LLM contributions like the kernel.
Choice 7 says "The proposal does not cover indirect contributions, i.e. those originating from upstream works.". It's only making requirements on Debian work specifically.
Choice 8 says "We also acknowledge that LLM usage can be hard if not impossible to detect and that Debian as a distribution cannot really impose LLM policies on other projects we package and distribute. Therefore this text is just a position statement." It doesn't impose any requirements at all on anybody, even for debian specific work: it just says "we'd prefer it if you don't use this technology".
A lot of work and code is Debian specific, and so there's a choice to be made about LLM use for that code, as there is for any project. And there are questions about LLM use in mailing list discussions, bug reports, and other non code interactions. Most of the options take a position on that (i.e. impose some rules for those contributions) one way or another.
What other projects choose on the question is interesting and might inform the choice, but what e.g. the kernel opts for doesn't control what Debian decides for itself, any more than the kernel's choice imposes any requirements on Rust or glibc or gcc.
What is the point of setting standards on the way we work? It's an exercise in democratic decision making. Some people dislike ai for entirely legitimate reasons, and they want to see if others in their community agree. (And if so, set boundaries on the way they work.)
You gotta stop seeing "virtue signaling" every time someone holds a belief different than your own.
It means that for any patches submitted directly to Debian, they can blanket reject it if it has signs of AI without having to properly evaluate the patch on it's merits (which is onerous and easily DDOSed).
While it would be desirable to ban all packages that use AI, Debian has its own code to protect.
They cannot ban all packages because Torvalds has been bought by the sponsors of the Linux Foundation and has already used the "AI is a tool" talking point from the corporate manuals.
Debian and Linux partly started as resistance projects against Microsoft, so a moral stance is expected and welcome anyway.
We'll see if the Canonical people who always vote for corporations or the idealists win. If Canonical wins this, Debian is obsolete.
Green belt areas mostly are not markers of ecologically important areas. They're a planning tool that largely exists to prevent urban sprawl. A lot of the green belt area is unremarkable commercial agricultural land.
The white paper states the definition more precisely:
"LISEP’s definition of “True” employment or unemployment accepts the U-3 rate for comparison purposes, but modifies it by adopting two important stipulations. The first stipulation deals with the workweek. To be employed for the purposes of LISEP’s true employment concept, an individual must either have a full-time job (35+ hours per week) or have a part-time job but no desire to be full-time (e.g., students). The second stipulation is that an individual must earn at least $20,000 annually."
reply