That’s unfortunate.
Technically this hasn’t been approved by the General Assembly yet, and then individual countries would need to ratify it. But press coverage suggest it’s a done deal.
For the treaty to go into force, 40 nations have to ratify it.
In many places, ratifying a treaty requires parliament approval, so it’s not going to be quick. Talk to your representative once this treaty comes up in your parliement’s agenda.
Bitcoin is not practical for small purshases, because transaction takes several minutes, and have around 50USD per-transaction fee. Note the cost of fees and value of bitcoin vary wildly, so the same amount of bitcoin may be enough to pay rent in August, but not in September.
On a more ethical level, it’s also quite bad because of the insane energy cost of bitcoin transactions.
This is an opinion piece… It’s clearly marked as being an opinion. Even though it has solid arguments, and probably hold some truth, it’s not an actual news article written by NYT staff, it’s not pretending to be a factual reporting by a journalist nor an objective truth.
Everyone is free to agree or disagree with it. To buy, sell, or hold.
It would be wise however to consider the argument themselves, and not decide go to in one direction just because the author/publisher is someone you like or dislike.
Bitcoin finds a new use! Helping Russia finance its war of agression against Ukraine.
Why not both?
zero usefuless x 2 = zero usefulness
What does it mean for bitcoin to double in value?
Has bitcon’s utility or usefulness doubled?
Or has bitcoin behaved as a highly volatile speculative asset?
Fool me once…
Save a seat for Amazon in the ICJ courtroom.
That’s true. “AI-enabled” is usually a hint of over engineering and unnecessary collection of data.
negative response to AI disclosure was even stronger for “high-risk” products and services, […] such as expensive electronics, medical devices or financial services. Because failure carries more potential risk, […] mentioning AI for these types of descriptions may make consumers more wary […]
That sounds like a rational reaction.
There’s a lot of hand waving when companies talk about AI safety. I would be more likely pay for a product with some AI if marketing promote its effectiveness without highlighting AI, than if they mentioned AI with vague assurance about safety.
I think that’s going the last one in my lifetime. I won’t be around anymore for 28 centuries later.
Would it be responsible to sell canned beef which makes you sick 7.5% of the time?
What if there was notice saying “Only 7.5% of our delicious canned beef contain listeria”?
This is how to cover your ass. This is not how to be responsible.
The last paragraph is interesting.
Sure, generating harmful responses 7.5% of the time is better than 51% of the time. But we’re still far from a safe LLM, if that’s even possible.
I’d rather companies would NOT make LLMs available publicly as a service unless the rate is < 1%. What they’re doing now isn’t responsible.
Don’t forget the 15% minimum corporate tax. This now have to be turned into law.
Taxing individuals by itself cannot solve shortcomings in the tax system. The super rich have corporations and shell companies in tax heavens to avoid taxes.
I made the following report on this post:
Serious claim without proper source. Please consider adding a flair or editing the title to indicate it’s unverified and/or lack source
Taler is closer to an EMV card alternative, rather than a cash alternative.
Hopefully cash remains. But regions and businesses are already starting to go cashless, so I’d rather have Tale as an option.
Would Taler be more resilient than a typical EMV/AmEx card? It’s designed as an online payment system but it’s less centralised, so that could help.
It’s already an attractive project due to its privacy feature, and due to it being more regulation-friendly that cryptocurrencies. If it’s resilient enough it could act as a digital cash.
Reddit would then sue for plagiarism.
A simple fix to make it more transparent : replace the blue check by a 🪙 or 💵. Now, the blue check just represent paid users.
These 5% of negative reviews probably has nothing to do with you. There’s always a small amount of people unhappy for random or unrelated reasons (broke up with boy/girlfriend, car broke, etc) and who would write negative reviews no matter what. It’s possible they cannot dissociate the course from other things happening in their life. They just happened to be unhappy at that time, and felt like leaving a nasty review.