The regulations impose additional requirements for a reason - because political advertising can be extremely dangerous. If it’s a question of no political advertising or opaque, microtargeted political advertising that can’t be investigated later, then it’s an easy choice.

They don’t need it so I don’t provide it, that’s my primary reason and that should be enough.

It is enough. In fact, it’s better than the “you should trust your SO” argument which doesn’t make any sense.

I didn’t say it’s something you need. Read the rest of my comment.

If you just see this and, like 20 others, blindly say “you should trust your partner” then you haven’t thought about it at all. If you trust your partner completely, then you trust them to use your location information responsibly, right? So trust does not have any bearing on whether to use it or not.

The issue for me is that we should try to avoid normalising behaviour which enables coercive control in relationships, even if it is practical. That means that even if you trust your partner not to spy on your every move and use the information against you, you shouldn’t enable it because it makes it harder for everyone who can’t trust their partner to that extent to justify not using it.

On a more practical level, controlling behaviour doesn’t always manifest straight away. What’s safe now may not be safe in two years, and if it does start ramping up later, it may be much, much harder to back out of agreements made today which end up impacting your safety.

End-to-end ML can be much better than hybrid (or fully rules-based) systems. But there’s no guarantee and you have to actually measure the difference to be sure.

For safety-critical systems, I would also not want to commit fully to an e2e system because the worse explainability means it’s much harder to be confident that there is no strange failure mode that you haven’t spotted but may be, or may become, unacceptable common. In that case, you would want to be able to revert to a rules-based fallaback that may once have looked worse-performing but which has turned out to be better. That means that you can’t just delete and stop maintaining that rules-based code if you have any type of long-term thinking. Hmm.

That and (at least for now) it may be difficult to communicate contextual information to an LLM that a human historian or philologist may be able to take in implicitly.

Ew

Because people are mostly incapable of using the button as anything other than “I like this” or “I don’t like this”.

If your encryption is not a layer on top of a messaging service, you have to trust that the service you’re using is actually end-to-end encrypted. I point this out because it means that encryption is not a protection against he service not doing what it says it does, but rather it is a protection against other things: passing data to governments, having a hacker break in and leak it, that kind of thing.

By storing stuff securely, it mitigates that problem, I guess. A government would have to have a “live tap” to know what you write to the LLM, rather than being able to slurp out all your historical conversations.

The right tool here is tests at a level higher than machine code instructions that have been in CPUs since the 70s. Maybe TDD practice is not to test at this level, but every example of TDD sure tends to be something similar!

Either way gets me to a passing test, but I prefer the latter because it enables me to write another failing test.

But you could just write that failing test up front. TDD encourages you to pretend to know less than you do (you know that testing evenness requires more than one test, and you know the implementation requires more than some if-statements), but no-one has ever made a convincing argument to me that you get anything out of this pretence.

Tests should make changing your system easier and safer, if they don’t it is typically a sign things are being tested at the wrong level

TDD is about writing (a lot of) unit tests, which are at a low-level. Because they are a low-level design-tool, they test the low-level design. Any non-trivial change affects the low-level design of a component, because changes tend to affect code at a certain level and most of those below it to some degree.

When faced with a failing test, you make it pass as simply as possible, and then you summon all your computer science / programming experience to refactor the code into something more elegant and maintainable.

Why bother making it pass “as simply as possible” instead of summoning all that experience to write something that don’t know is stupid?

TDD doesn’t promise to drive the final implementation at the unit level

What exactly does it drive, then? Apart from writing more test code than application code, with attendant burdens when refactoring or making other changes.

I don’t want unseeded randomness in my tests, ever.

Seed the tests, and making these pass would be trivial.

As the existing reply stated, there are only ever finitely many tests.

My issue with TDD is that it pretends to drive the final implementation with tests, but what is really driving the implementation is the monkey at the keyboard thinking, “testing for evenness should be done with the modulo operation,” not exhaustive tests.

This is what Test Driven Development looks like

I don’t understand how regex comes into it? Sounds tricky though!

I asked an LLM to write a jq scriptlet for me today. It wasn’t even complicated, it just beat working it out/trying to craft the write string to search Stackoverflow for.

So they established that language patterns measured by word frequency changed between 2022 and 2024. But did they also analyse frequencies across other 2-year time periods? How much difference is there for a typical word? It looks like they have a per-frequency significance threshold but then analysed all words at once, meaning that random noise would turn up a bunch of “significant” results. Maybe this is addressed in the original paper which is not linked.

They are both harmful, should both be discouraged, and one results in the creation of non-consentual porn of the victim which is provable and should be illegal.

OK, so you only stop short of making a thought crime because you can’t prove it. That’s… consistent but extremely concerning. You have no business policing what people think about. Freedom of thought is a fundamental right and what goes on inside other people’s heads is no-one’s business but their own unless they choose otherwise.

This ought to be the trigger to realise that you’ve got something wrong in this worldview. Even if not, it’s my trigger to know that I’m not going to get anywhere, so this will be my last reply. If someone thinks that the only issue with thought crimes is in gathering evidence, our views on morality and the limits of authority are diametrically opposed and there is no point trying, but at least I understand. If it’s the thought you really want to control, then you wouldn’t have any issue with the person who makes something harmful by accident.

Pedophiles should be forcefully institutionalized

Disturbing that you can’t recognise how disturbing this language is. But sure: threaten people with being locked up for unchangeable yet not harmful aspects of their selves, just to make sure that they never seek help to keep from causing harm. Morality aside this can’t have any negative consequences.

Everything I have read suggests that paedophiles have no control over their attraction, only over their actions. Here’s a thought experiment which I doubt you’ll bother trying: could you decide to be attracted to children? I couldn’t. It seems to be exactly like a sexual orientation in that respect.

Pedophiles should be forcefully institutionalized

can genuinely think of no other reason why you would be so incapable of empathizing with the victims in this situation.

Your inability to engage with points of view different from your own is problematic. The victims in your narratives are always female, the perpetrators always male. Those who disagree with you are always evil perpetrators. I only say this now that I’m disengaging because there’s no point in being drawn on provocative nonsense while trying to sustain a conversation.

Your thought experiment is moot as these are real people.

That doesn’t make sense at all. That real people are affected means it is important to get this right, which means it is necessary to think carefully about it. We don’t disagree that real people are getting hurt but it seems to me that you take that to mean we should immediately jump to the first solution without regard for getting it right.

The difference between fantasy and porn is that porn is media content, it is a real image or video and not an imagination in someone’s mind.

You have again not taken the opportunity to say how that translates to differing harm and hence the necessity of a differing approach, even though when you talk about the harms you always talk about things that are the same between the two things.

You are in a very very very small minority of people if you disagree.

Yeah I know. I think the world is extremely backwards about paedophilia because the abhorrence of the crime of child sexual abuse gives them a blind-spot and makes them unable to separate the abhorrent act from the thought. I would have to guess that this is also what’s going on here (but this is less extreme). That is, I think, confirmed by your rejection of making thought experiments due to the situation involving “real people”, as if it is therefore impossible to think clearly about - maybe for you it is.

I can only hope that people learn to do so, because the current situation causes abuse (in the case of paedophiles) and is likely to lead down the road of wrongly punishing people for things done in private without external repercussions (in other cases).