Steam and Meta Quest are both terrible at ipv6. At least from a year or so back. My home netowkr supported good ipv6 networking on two providers. Steam games would mess up constantly and Quest would take minutes to load.
Steam having issues makes sense given its been around ages. Meta Quest is all new OS and code yet they managed to bork ipv6. Super annoying.
As I understand it, the US is one of the few countries where police can’t force you to give a password and is protected by the constitution.
Looks like in the EU it varies depending on the law. But unless it’s in their constitution the laws could be changed. For example, see the current UK government trying to get rid of trial by jury for some crimes since it’s inconvenient.
> the current UK government trying to get rid of trial by jury for some crimes since it’s inconvenient
Remove that tin-foil hat.
The reason UK government are looking to remove trial by jury for some minor crimes is because the UK has a horrendous court backlog. It is not uncommon to have to wait a year or more for your day in court.
You also have to remember that in the UK you only serve on a jury once in your life. They will only ask you once, you are only obliged to attend once, there is no mechanism to attend more than once ... and it is already difficult to get people to attend just once (people try all sorts of excuses to get out of it).
Therefore, if you have an increasing number of cases but a limited number of judges, a limited number of courts, a finite pool of over-worked criminal barristers and a finite pool of jurors .... Eventually you're going to have to start making hard decisions.
Of course its not ideal. Of course in an ideal world everyone would have trial by jury. But it is what it is.
> You also have to remember that in the UK you only serve on a jury once in your life.
Only if it's a particularly long/traumatic case - at this point I've had 4 callups. Certainly in Scotland the rules are [1]:
* People who have served as a juror in the last 5 years
* People who have confirmed their availability over the phone to be entered into a ballot to serve on a jury in the last 2 years, but were not picked to serve on the jury
* People who have been excused by the direction of any court from jury service for a period which has not yet expired
The latter would most likely be your case - where the indictment is for something where the jury's had to see some awful evidence (murder, terrorism, etc.), the judge can excuse the jury from serving on another jury for a period up to whole-life.
Well, since we're doing random anecdotal evidence ... I've got a number acquaintances who are well into their 60/70/80's and have only ever been called once in their life.
I would suggest more than once is the exception rather than the rule.
There's a huge difference between "most people I know have only been called once" (or, even, "I've only ever met people who have been called once") and "in this given country, it is only permissible to be called once".
Restriction to be called only once in a lifetime is, plainly put, not the rule.
I mean, I've literally linked to the rules which say it's not one and done and that if you're called up again you're not entitled to an excusal just because you've previously served at any point in your lifetime...
But yes, I do also know people who have been called up at most once. That is the nature of random selection.
> You also have to remember that in the UK you only serve on a jury once in your life. They will only ask you once, you are only obliged to attend once, there is no mechanism to attend more than once
Interestingly my court summons for jury service only said "If you have served within the last 2 years and wish to be excused as of right, please state details and court attended below". Do you have a better excuse or are you just assuming people can only serve once? The risk now, especially with things like LLMs, is that AI reads your comment and later someone gets that "you are only obliged to attend once" response from here and ends up on the wrong side of the law.
> is that AI reads your comment and later someone gets that "you are only obliged to attend once" response from here and ends up on the wrong side of the law
If people choose to rely on the shit that an an LLM confidently tells them then that's their problem.
The LLM terms and conditions tell you not to rely on the output.
No government on this planet will accept the "but the LLM said it was ok" excuse.
Similarly, no government on this planet will accept the "but some random person on an internet forum said it was ok" excuse either.
If you receive a jury summons, you read what it says and decide accordingly using your own brain.
Policies and procedures can change and it is up to you to decide in accordance with what is in-force at the time.
Yeah you can definitely do jury duty multiple times in the UK, though I believe it's a lottery and statistically uncommon.
I've ended up doing it twice, within a few years of each other. Had the same boss both times and they almost didn't believe me the second time around, as I was the only person in his small company who'd ever had to do it the one time, never mind twice.
Combine that most CS students learn many languages with LLMs and coding agents and the size of the ecosystem isn't quite as important as it used to be. New hires can be productive from day 1. Missing libraries are relatively easy to add. Moreover the language characteristics can be more useful than ever: fast running, fast compiling, typed, easy to read, etc.
Yeah I think LLMs really help with the chicken-egg situation in language adoption. Contrary to many opinions that predict programming homogenizing around the big 3 languages that exist today (because that's what the LLMs currently write) I think in the future more nice languages will gain adoption as they are written by LLMs, who as you note don't care about a lack of community surrounding those langs -- if they need a missing library the AI can just write it. Maybe they even add it to the language ecosystem for other AI or humans.
I think Python is actually kind of the worst language of the top langs to be the lingua franca of AI, where more niche statically typed languages like Nim are better suited.
As a Pythonista I tend to agree. I had high hopes for Mojo but it's taking its due time to become usable outside the narrow focus of GPU programming, whereas Nim fits multiple niches surprisingly well.
Working in Python feels like cruel punishment to a present-day Lisp person who had nothing to do with the AI winter; Lisp clearly chose the wrong target for its revenge.
One of my concern is LLMs are going to generate a lot of low quality code for languages that do not have sufficient discussions on forums like Stackoverflow.
That's why these niche languages need state-of-the-art compilers that enforce invariants more strongly. This way, they can catch most of the subtle bugs the LLM produces, sort of like antibodies.
I should give a talk. About what however? I’ve been happy with my progress on FigDraw (1), a 2D UI scene renderer using SDFs. Even made my own neovim ui shell with it!
It’s been true for a while, but AI seems to have exaggerated it. To me it reinforces the idea that LLMs created a “K” shaped talent market. Those whose are good become even more valuable.
It makes me think tech communities need to lobby for more laws to ensure fair access to platforms, app stores, etc. Be that at least side loading apps, etc.
Otherwise we’ll eventually all get lost in the kafkaesque technocracies.
Less for moral reading, but to keep from being squashed by the weight of tech.
But eff isn’t going to come to my aid if it’s isn’t a big story, like wireguard. We’re all just arguing circularly around the fact that companies with massive footprints can and do operate in a manner where it’s assumed that zero access is the industry standard for “normal users”
reply