While this is technically correct, everyday use of LLMs involves a non-zero temperature, so they (the whole package that people think of as “AI”) are non-deterministic in practice.

The question wasn’t “can we maintain our margin,” the question was “can we manufacture in the US with the same margin we used to enjoy?”

The whole thing is a stunt designed to focus ire against tariffs, but let’s not mischaracterize their point: manufacturing in the US is much more expensive than manufacturing in Asia.

Under the GDPR, it’s illegal to treat PII like currency. You can’t gate a service behind PII consent.

The atom bomb ushered an unprecedented era of peace between nuclear armed countries.

The number of men dying or getting wounded in war as a percentage of population has gone down dramatically post-nuclear.

Conventional meat-grinder warfare is all but over in nuclear countries, and we can probably thank it for not being sent to war ourselves.

We also got atomic energy out of it which is cool.

Because LLMs match your prompt to data scraped off the internet, it’s plausible that being polite results in your response coming from more civil conversations that have more useful data.

You can’t (practically) unit test LLM responses, at least not in the traditional sense. Instead, you do runtime validation with a technique called “LLM as judge.”

This involves having another prompt, and possibly another model, evaluate the quality of the first response. Then you write your code to try again in a loop and raise an alert if it keeps failing.

You seem to be missing the point that federal research grants are not gifts, but instead paying for a service.

This is for the UK.

Tell your... MP

It seemed to be a UN thing?

The airline ticketing industry is run by a massive pile of shared legacy code. (Except Southwest, which has a different pile of legacy code, as I understand it.) Changing it seems like a really big deal.

What I didn’t see in the article was anything about the motivation for this change. Why undertake such an expensive revision to boarding systems? Who is benefiting?

The sort of people that like tracking the movements of everyone but also have no idea how reality actually works.

People love the sales pitch of "eliminate paper things" for some reason. It's the future, how could we possibly need dead trees anymore when everything is SCREEN?

I prefer paper travel documents because I know there's no chance they'll break down from a dead battery/no signal/cracked screen.

With some nastiness, you could make every link on the page a form submission and submit the session ID with the form. Then render it into the HTML that’s returned in response.

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

You’re confusing the GDPR and the ePrivacy directive. (And maybe getting that wrong too. I’ve read the GDPR but not the ePrivacy directive. Oh, and IANAL.)

The GDPR doesn’t require consent for cookies. What it requires is a lawful basis for tracking people’s personal information. Most of those lawful bases don’t require consent either.

The only time the GDPR requires consent is when somebody wants to collect your personal information and they don’t have a good reason to do so. Then they have to ask, they have to make it easy for you to decline, and they have to make it easy for you to withdraw your consent later. They also can’t withhold anything from you if you decline. They can’t charge more for their services, block it from your access, etc.

That’s what the GDPR has to say about consent. Nothing to do with those cookie banners, which are the result of scummy companies doing scummy things.

GP are wrong about which law applies, but they are applying that law correctly.

The ePrivacy Directive requires consent to read or write from the user's terminal device, except when strictly required for the functionality the user requested. Unlike GDPR, it does not allow a different Legal Basis. It must be consent, or strictly functionally necessary. Nothing else.

The passage of GDPR did impact the ePrivacy Directive in that it updated the definition of "consent." The ePD doesn't have one; it referenced the definition in the DPD, which was replaced by GDPR. This is why people blame the GDPR for cookie banners, although really it's incidental.

Great clarification, thank you.