It wasn't a semantic argument; it was a question, or two questions.
It's possible, in fact likely, that the Budesamt für Verfassungsschutz has a clear idea of what rechtsextrem (I'm guessing that's the term they use) means but I certainly don't!
Technically, I think, that first sentence, by Austen, uses a passive participle but does not use a passive voice for any finite verb. I don't think that advice to avoid "the passive" is intended to apply to that situation.
For example, nobody would seriously suggest avoiding the passive participle in a sentence like "Put the broken plate in the bin". ("Put the plate that someone broke into the bin"?)
LLMs are impressively multilingual, though. I just asked ChatGPT a question and told it to reply in Latin. It seems to have done a reasonable job, though it's hard for me to judge: I suspect it knows Latin a lot better than I do.
One thing I might try, when I have some spare time, is see to what extent ChatGPT "understands" the difference between British and American English and is capable of using the variety I prefer. I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out that ChatGPT is better at writing "pure" British English than the average British teenager in this day and age. Has anyone, by any chance, already experimented with anything like that? Like I say, I haven't tried the experiment yet, but it seems like a good fit for the sort of thing that LLMs are good at.
"I before E except after C, but only when the sound is E" is the version I've heard, so "weird" (and "weir") are not exceptions. (In standard British English the vowel in "weird" is /ɪə/, not /iː/.)
It says "requesting sexual content of a minor". I'm not sure how to parse that. My brain is jumping back and forth between "requesting stuff from a minor" and "stuff that is inside a minor".
Bubblewrap gets a bit confused inside a Docker container. If anyone knows how to run Codex inside a Docker container on Linux without it constantly complaining about a broken bubblewrap, please tell.
> If anyone knows how to run Codex inside a Docker container on Linux without it constantly complaining about a broken bubblewrap, please tell.
Why would you even use bubblewrap once it's running in a container? I've been running Codex in a container since it was publicly available, not even sure what you'd use bubblewrap for when you already separated codex from the rest of your filesystem?
"Codex could not find bubblewrap on PATH. Install bubblewrap with your OS package manager. See the sandbox prerequisites: ... Codex will use the bundled bubblewrap in the meantime."
I think neither the bundled bubblewrap nor the Ubuntu 24.04 bubblewrap works properly under Docker with the default options ... Yes, I've just tested that by asking Codex to "Test that bubblewrap is working properly" and then "Test again" after apt-get install bubblewrap.
EDIT: So the solution is to run "codex --dangerously-bypass-approvals-and-sandbox" in a Docker container?
You have to add Linux capabilities to support creating nested namespaces. IIRC SYS_ADMIN is required. If you do that, what do you think you’re achieving with the container? It defeats the entire purpose IMO, just makes development more inconvenient.
If you need the sandboxing capabilities provided by the application and don’t want to run it on the host, you should set up a VM, not a container.
From a systems perspective, it’s foolish to rely on a proprietary application to provide its own isolation guarantees. This is an OS-layer responsibility.
ML/AI experts suffer badly from hubris. They are brilliant in one domain. It transfers poorly to systems engineering. The proof is in the FelonyBench results.
I never thought of the DVR as a particularly significant development. I thought of it as just a replacement for the VCR. That's what it was for me. But perhaps in some areas DVRs were used to a greater extent than VCRs had been?
When I still lived with my parents around the turn of the century, we had a Tivo DVR that talked directly with their DirecTV system's dish. The Tivo was dual-tuner and could do things like record one thing while letting a person watch a different live thing, or it could record two things if the human wasn't watching anything live.
In those pre-streaming days, it would often occupy itself by filling otherwise-empty hard drive space with stuff that people might want to watch at a time of their choosing -- based on previous and simple Thumbs Up / Thumbs Down inputs from the handheld remote. In this way, it generally had stuff recorded and available for viewing 24/7 that people in the house might actually want to watch, at just the cost of some otherwise-idle machine time and some simple user ratings to direct it.
At that time, it was a very neat DVR with very thoughtful features that were implemented in smart ways.
I wanted to watch THX-1138, which was supposed to be George Lucas's first feature-length film. It was somewhat obscure; I couldn't find it to rent locally. I couldn't find it in the published schedules for the premium channels we had, either.
I could have bought a new copy, maybe, but IIRC even that was problematic. This whole Internet thing was still mostly confined to the old-web era and inexpensively mass-produced DVDs hadn't entered the era of ubiquity.
So I told the Tivo DVR to record that film, anyway, without further instruction. Despite knowing that it was hard (mabe impossible!) to find on-air: I just gave it the name and told it to make it so.
And as unlikely as that seemed to me at that time: It did. It took months for it to find THX-1138. When it was eventually scheduled to be aired (one time, in the middle of the night): It made that recording a priority, executed that recording without flaw, and kept that recording so I could watch it later.
That was gold. VCRs never, ever did that stuff. (Most other DVRs never did, either.)
Yeah, I readily concede it's lesser. For me it was the moment that we stopped watching a particular thing and discussing it the next day. But maybe that's more personal biography than sociology.
Rare, certainly: there are plenty of vanity publications that were chucked into the bin by almost everyone who was unlucky enough to be given a copy. Precious? Well, with the help of an electronic friend I found ISBN 978-3-8365-7349-8. Apparently a copy of that book is worth about £40k. Can anyone beat that?
(EDIT: I'm assuming "precious" means the same as valuable here to make the question easier to answer. In fact, of course, people usually say "precious" when they mean a personal or emotional attachment or cultural importance rather than economic value.)
I’ve not followed the market much but I suspect some fine press editions of Stephen King’s work would be up there. Of course, tons of standard paperback editions of those that could be pulped.
Since you seem to know about this, what are the actual rules about "destruction of evidence" in your jurisdiction? What does the accused need to have known for a crime to have been committed?
(Common sense tells me that the accusation might make sense both in cases in which the accused knows about a crime and in cases in which the accused knows about a police investigation, even in the absence of a crime, but deleting nude photographs to stop a customs officer from seeing them, for a random example, would that be a crime?)
Generally any material you intentionally delete after you are told to hand over evidence is considered to be the most incriminating version of that material in a court of law.
That rule wouldn't work very well if the person who destroyed the evidence isn't the person suspected of the crime and it is unclear whether the person who destroyed the evidence is a friend or an enemy of the suspect. So I think a sane legal system would want to punish the person who destroyed the evidence rather than jeopardise the fair trial of the suspect.
reply