Humanius

It shouldn’t even be that complex…

I might be mistaken, but ultimately a password manager is basically nothing more than a database of passwords in an encrypted zip file, right? That could entirely be self-hosted with off the shelf open source applications stringed together.
All you’d need is a nice UI stringing it all together.

Edit: I’m not sure why people are downvoting me. Is that not what a password manager essentially is?

So it’s just like Amsterdam then :)

… and the people involved were arrested

I like to think that these videos are the only thing keeping Patrick Boyle sane from his career in finance.

His channel is great. I love his dry sense of humour.

People who have a more in-the-middle opinion generally don’t talk about AI a lot. People with the most extreme opinions on something tend to be the most vocal about them.

Personally I think it’s a neat technology, and there probably exist use-cases where it will work decently well. I don’t think it’ll be able to do everything and anything that the AI companies are promising right now, but there are certainly some tasks where an AI tool could help increase efficiency.
There are also issues with the way the companies behind the Large Language Models are sourcing their training data, but that is not an inherent issue of the technology. It’s more an issue with incorrectly licensing the material.

I’m just curious to see where it all goes.

Discord and Whatsapp
I’d love to use Signal, but virtually noone in my sphere uses it.

The Houthis are funded by Iran, get their weapons provided by Iran, and Iran provides them with targeting information.
You’d really have to warp the definition of proxy in order not to consider them a proxy to Iran (even if they are a bit of an unpredictable factor)

Looks like a low effort troll to me.
Don’t take the bait

But someone still needs to pay for that storage investment (as well as for maintaining the grid), and if noone (or nearly noone) is paying for their power then there is no money to invest in these things

Correct, but that also comes to the main reason why paying people for roof solar isn’t sustainable in the long term.

As solar panels keeps getting cheaper, more and more people will put solar on their roof. Since they get paid / reimbursed for feeding power back into the grid. And they don’t need a battery because they can just draw from the grid. This causes two problems:

• During the day far more power is produced than needed, since everyone has solar on the roofs
• During the night there is a lot of power draw from the grid, which cannot come from all the available roof solar.

Paying people for their roof solar is a good strategy short-term, but as more and more people have solar on the roof you cannot really keep doing that.

Where in Europe is this? Europe isn’t a monolith, after all.
Here in the Netherlands we (currently) still have the “salderingsregeling” which is used to reimburse people for the solar they feed back into the grid, though that will eventually go away.

Paying people for solar on the roof is a bit tricky in general, and probably not sustainable long term:

• The money to maintain the grid has to come from somewhere, and if a lot of people have a bill of zero euros or a negative amount, that system kind of breaks down.
• The grid has a maximum capacity (especially in residential neighbourhoods) so you cannot pump an infinite amount of power back into the grid. If many houses in a neighbourhood have solar the grid simply cannot cope.

Large countries like to boast that their absolute number is bigger, it’s a tale as old as time.

If you really want to make comparisons (and I’d argue it’s really not that important) you should probably look at medals per capita, or medals per athlete sent. Obviously that gets a bit distorted with countries with small population, but I think it’s a more valuable number.

By the medals per capita metric the USA is 47th, and China is 75th.
https://www.medalspercapita.com/

I can’t find a good list for medals per athlete sent.

The headline is a bit misleading. Trump agreed to the ABC debate if Harris agrees to the Fox debate.
This is just a ploy for him to either get Harris to show up on Fox, or if she doesn’t debate him on Fox, spin it in such a way that Harris is somehow not wanting to debate him (Even though she never agreed to a Fox debate)

If he hasn’t shown genuine remorse than changes my stance.
Given what I had read on the matter I was under the impression he had shown remorse. Particularly the “biggest mistake of [his] life” remark.

So I’m not overly familiar, but I can try to summarize what I know.

Steven van de Velde is a Dutchman who went to the UK and raped a 12 year-old. He was sentenced to four years in prison for this by a UK court. Later he was extradited to the Netherlands, so he could sit out his sentence in the NL. However in the Netherlands, unlike the UK, sex with a minor is not automatically considered rape and needs to be proven in court. (Note: That is my understanding of the difference in interpretation) Because of this his conviction was reduced to “ontucht”, meaning sexual misconduct. (Even though what he did would probably also be considered rape in Dutch court).
As a result, he was out of prison after 13 months.

Now, Dutch attitude to these kinds of things, in my experience, is generally (but not always) that if you have paid your time, and have shown remorse for your actions, then it should probably not affect your future career prospects. The justice system is supposed to rehabilitate after all. (That is my experience though, and my experience may be biased, so don’t take this as gospel)

Hart van Nederland did a survey, and apparently only 27% of respondents think he should not be allowed to compete. 63% of respondents think he should be allowed to compete, and 10% don’t have an opinion either way. (Note that Hart van Nederland is not the most reliable of sources, but it gives an indication)

From what I have seen in Dutch circles this controversy is a lot less pronounced than it is in other countries. That’s not to say it is entirely uncontroversial, but it’s not quite to the same degree as I’m seeing internationally.

Personal opinion:

I don’t think his sentence should have been lowered to “ontucht”. I think what he did is morally reprehensible, and he should have sat out the full sentence for raping a minor. That is a failure on behalf of the justice system though, and van de Velde is not personally to blame for that.

That said, given that he has shown remorse for his actions, and has finished the sentence that the legal system imposed on him, I don’t think he should have been barred from competing in the Olympics on behalf of the Dutch team.

Edit: As Flying Squid mentioned I might be mistaken that he has shown genuine remorse.
If he hasn’t that changes my opinion on the matter.

So they can bitch that people booed, but he won’t acknowledge the reason is he raped a literal child?

Mathew Immers is not the guy who raped the child. That is Steven van de Velde.
Immers is van de Velde’s beach volleyball partner.

More like they have an ancient sewage system.

Basically, if the sewer system gets overwhelmed, for instance if there is a large amount of rainfall in a short time, then the sewage overflows directly into the Seine.
They have built infrastructure leading up to the Olympics to capture this overflow in storage tanks, but you cannot build infinitely large storage tanks so at some point it will still overflow.

And 2024 has been a very wet year thusfar, so…

Wasn’t the TGV sabotage attack also targeted at the fiber-optics lines? Wouldn’t be surprised if they were related.
Or maybe these people just really dislike fiber-optics, and are in the pockets of big copper /j

Okay… So he went to Russia in 2003. Considering that the consensus in 2003 was that Russia was still on its way to becoming a democracy I am not that offended by it personally.
“Putin’s hometown” being St. Petersburg, which is the 2nd biggest city in Russia.

What is more worrying is all the things that happened since 2003.

If it’s a publicly traded company the answer is that they likely don’t believe in anything. They just do whatever the leadership believes would generate most profit, since that is what shareholders (usually) care about most.

If appearing to support progressive goals gets people to spend money in the store, then that is something that makes sense for a company like this to do. But if they stand to lose more money than they gain, for instance through boycotts, they will drop the pretence pretty quickly.

Personally I see the stance such companies take more like a reflection of general acceptance in society as a whole. If a company promotes progressive values then that would indicate that society as a whole is on average leaning more progressive.
Similarly, if companies stop supporting these values that indicates a worrying trend with regards to societal acceptance.

Just don’t fool yourself into thinking that the company itself (as an entity) really believes in anything.

(Note: This doesn’t hold for companies that aren’t publically traded. If there are no stockholders to please the leadership can let their personal view affect the company’s policy quite a bit)