They don't even need to detect them - once they are common enough in training datasets the training process will "just" learn that the noise they introduce are not features relevant to the desired output. If there are enough images like that it might eventually generate images with the same features.

They are a victim of bullying when they've been under decades of illegal occupation. Hamas is an awful organization, but it was only formed as a result of ongoing brutal oppression. When you keep punching someone in the face, sooner or later they'll start punching back, and sometimes they'll fight dirty. That doesn't make them good, but the bully is still the one who kicked things off in the first place and the one who should be first and foremost held responsible for the situation they created.

Hamas individual victims get my full sympathy; they're victims of both Hamas and Israel. Israel as a state does not - without their brutal oppression, extensive war crimes, and apartheid regime, there wouldn't be any Hamas in the first place.

Having worked at, and co-founded, multiple startups over a period of 28 years: Sure. But why are you choosing that?

The reality is that the moment I started standing up to employers or investors and expecting decent standards, they folded and I was able to have a good work-life balance and get paid market rates and still get to work on cool startups and get shares.

These companies prey on most people never thinking to negotiate (and having been on the other side of the table, and tried to be decent: most people never negotiate, even though we almost always have space to do so)

Conflating religion and national belonging like this is pure and vile xenophobia. Thinking all Muslim countries supports Palestine is also staggeringly ignorant.

Reggie is great. Very chill. Just wish it wasn't so shy. I've only been allowed to briefly pet Reggie on a couple of occasions over several years.

This is basically the concept of a Webring, and used to be big. Some were fixed (as in the path through the ring was always the same), but some were more flexible or random or semi-random.

A decentralised approach would be new, and not necessarily too hard since the dataset for each ring would be small, so each member could just store all or a subset of the entries in their ring and submit updates to their "neighbours" in the ring that'd eventually spread out to everyone. The challenge is moderation - you'll still end up with some entities that have a privileged position to weed out bad entries, because the appeal was always to a large extent to make discovery "someone else's problem" and the moment you let someone put links on your site someone will try to abuse it.

I prefer to hope the person who made this is just a crappy writer who desperately tried to find a way to make us think they were talking to a girl first and couldn't think of another way of describing rejection. (I fear that's not the reason, and that you're right, but I live in hope)

We would not.

The extra amount you need as life expectancy increases diminishes with each extra year. E.g. let's assume (for each of calculation only; you can just scale it up linearly) that you need 10k/year on top of social security to live off in retirement. If your savings is 100k, and you only get a 5% return every year, you'll run out after about 15 years. Hence a typical lifetime annuity bought at age 65 will be around that in the US because it matches up with current US life expectancy (it won't deviate much elsewhere).

So that's for living to roughly 80. Here's how it'll play out as you approach 120:

85: ~20% more 90: ~38% more 95: ~52% more 100: ~62% more 105: ~70% more 110: ~77% more 115: ~82% more 120: ~86% more

As you can see, the curve flattens out. It flattens out because you're getting closer and closer to have sufficient money that the returns can sustain you perpetually (at a 5% return, which is pretty conservative, at $200k, you can perpetually take out $10k, and no further increase in life expectancy will change that).

Now, that of course is not in any way an insignificant increase, but if we assume 40 working years, $100k is about $850/year additional investment + compounding investment return at 5%. $186k is around $1550/year compounding.

But here's the thing, if you work 10 years longer, you grow it disproportionately much, because you delay starting to take money out, and you need less, while you get the compounding investment return of ten more years, and that drives down the yearly savings you need to make back down to around $850/year.

So an increase of 40 years of life expectancy "just" requires 10 more years of work to fully fund it assuming the same payment in during the later years. But here's the thing: Most people have far higher salaries towards the end of their careers, even inflation-adjusted, so most people would be able to fund 40 more years with far less than 10 extra years of work.

(Note that if you already were on track for your pensions to last you to 90, if you were pre-retirement now, you'd "only" need about 35% extra savings to have enough until 120, because you'd get returns from a higher base, so the extra savings or extra years of work needed over what you managed would be even lower)

These all work on averages btw. - due to differences in health, this is where we really want insurance/state pensions rather than relying on individual contributions.

This doesn't mean there aren't problems to deal with. Especially if the life expectancy grows fast enough that it "outpaces" peoples ability to adjust. But it's thankfully not quite as bad as having to add another 30 years of work.

In large part because at least some portion of California lawmakers knows their history well enough to be aware that all of Silicon Valley is a thing in the first place because people were able to leave and take their ideas with them and start something new.

A huge portion of the value of Silicon Valley today can still be traced back to when the "Traitorous Eight" left Shockley Semiconductor to form Fairchild in 1957, and build tech based on what they'd learnt at Shockley, with many of them then going on to leave Fairchild and found further new companies. The outcome of that among many others resulted in both Intel and AMD, and the same pattern has repeated many times.

That was my starting point, and I changed because it wasn't easier.

I switched because my Emacs config was thousands of lines of code to try to wrangle it to do what I wanted. My editor is ~3.5k lines of code and is closer to things how I want them. It's spartan, and you and most other people would hate it. That's fine - I have no interest in writing a general-purpose editor.

Writing a good general-purpose editor is immensely hard, but writing a small editor for yourself is not.

I could absolutely manage to squeeze everything I want into any open-source editor and many proprietary ones via extensions, but there's no value in that to me when I can write less code and get something that's exactly adapted to my workflow.

For starters, I use a tiling window manager, and there are no editors that are designed with that in mind. That doesn't mean they work badly with them, but that e.g. they spent a lot of code on window and tab/frame management that my window manager is already doing the way I want it, and so just by making my editor client-server (a few dozen lines of code with Ruby via DrB), I got that "for free": When I split a view in two, I use the API of my window manager to halve the size of the actual top level window and insert a new editor instance that observes the same buffer. I could retrofit that on other editors too, but doing it from scratch means the "split a view in two" code in my editor is about a dozen lines of code.

Another example is that for my novels, the syntax highlighting dynamically adapts to highlight things I've taken notes about (e.g. characters, locations). I could do that with another editor too, but having full control over the way the rendering layer works meant it was trivial to have my custom workflow control the lexing.

I actually ditched Emacs because I realised I could write a text-editor that suited me better in fewer lines than my Emacs config took up...

My own custom text-editor, because it's written to fit into my environment exactly how I want it.