Confused as well, I rather supposed Antrophic had some standing for saying no to Trump and being declared national security threat, but the anger they got and people leaving to OpenAI again, who gladly said yes to autonomous killing AI did astonish me a bit. And I also had weird things happening with my usage limits and was not happy about it. But it is still very useful to me - and I only pay for the pro plan.

>I rather supposed Antrophic had some standing for saying no to Trump and being declared national security threat

I never understood why people cheered for Anthropic then when they happily work together with Palantir.

Yes, because doing it with low tech and for money is backbraking. But doing it for fun with other sources of income is a different story.

His tone I did not like either, but his point was that city life is not without mortal dangers either, which I think is fair.

I suppose this also depends on the types of remote controls? There are some where I can see red and some where I cannot.

The faint red glow is actual red light as many IR LED's (esp the ones used in cameras for night illumination) are close to the visible spectrum and have some visible light emission.

850nm is easily visible, but most remotes are 940nm, which is also visible as a faint purple glow but the source needs to be really bright.

Oh, my dream clean room is of course fully robot automated and I can watch through a big (safety) window.

No, it is not quite the same as Moscow and Washington are capitals of centralised states who give orders to the whole nation.

The EU on the other hand does not have a common constitution, army etc. so is not a real state (yet). It is made up of soveraign nations who come together debate and decide there, but then it is still up to the members to implement that.

So the transition to the EU as one state is happening, but might never complete.

The European Commission is in fact empowered to boss member states around, it's one of the things that give EU law teeth rather than it being like "international law" (unenforceable anarchy). It also acts much like a government (in the sense of executive, not in the sense of state) when it comes to EU lawmaking, and has various government-like powers in fields like competition law for example. And the European Commission is based in Brussels. Saying "Brussels" to refer to Commission activity is as natural as saying "London", "Downing Street", "the Cabinet Office", "Whitehall" etc to refer to British government functions. And that's without getting into all the other EU institutions that are based there!

It is true that the EU institutions are ultimately subordinate to the member states in a way that, say, the US federal institutions are not, but the EU is still very much is its own thing. It even has legal personality these days: you can sue the EU and the EU can sue you.

It doesn't imply that the EU is one state. It's just the place where the decisions are made. If Brussels didn't like anyone knowing that, I'm sure other cities in the EU would happily take the gobs of free money showered on wherever the EU is headquartered.

You mean like Strasbourg?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seat_of_the_European_Parliamen...

Spoiler, the parliamanet moves once a month between Brussel and there. That's how centralized the EU is, we cannot even decide on one fixed place to meet and decide.

Yes indeed - the gobs of money know no bounds.

I’m not sure you realise that this is a far more generic rhetorical phenomenon that encompasses all kinds of situations. Like referring to the FBI as Quantico.

Or Scotland Yard for the metropolitan police in london. They were commonly known by that name almost immediately after their founding in 1829.

Perhaps the earliest example is Pharaoh. It originally referred to the royal residence.

TIL Scotland Yard is the Metropolitan Police. I thought it was its own thing named "Scotland Yard" for some reasons I never bothered to investigate.

Which kind of proves your point.

> TIL Scotland Yard is the Metropolitan Police.

It is not? But also it is.

You are right that when people say "Scotland Yard" they do frequently mean the whole Metropolitan Police. And you are also right that there is no other police entity (that I know of) which would be associated with that name.

But also, "Scotland Yard" was just the address of the original headquarters of the Metropolitan Police. Even then it wasn't the whole organisation, just the address of one of the buildings. Then they got a new headquarters and called it "New Scotland Yard". And to confuse matters further they repeated this multiple times. Which means there are 3 buildings which were called "New Scotland Yard" at various points in time.

And today of course the MET occupies far more real estate than just the famous "Scotland Yard". For example if you look at this FOI request[1] you can see that there were 226 other buildings the Metropolitan Police used in 2023. (Not counting covert/sensitive estate).

1: https://www.met.police.uk/foi-ai/metropolitan-police/disclos...

Scotland Yard was originally the name of the street in which headquaters of the Metropolitan Police.

Right. What I meant is, until today I believed that "Scotland Yard" was an entirely different law enforcement agency from MET.

Oh, or using building names like White House and Kremlin?

Yes, I heard of the concept. My point was just that many have a misconception about the nature of the EU.

The issues page used to be good for this as well. What kind of problems people are having.

(Sometimes still is, but the agents garbage does not help)

Is that based on a real example or hypothetical?

No. "Poison" refers to a substance toxic to humans, but we can be exposed to pure oxygen and breath it very fine. But yes, oxygen is dangerous.

"Poison" can also refer to a substance toxic to other animals. We say that chocolate is poisonous to dogs for instance. And a good fraction of Earth's biosphere was killed off by oxygen poisoning in the first of Earth's great mass extinctions.

Also, the dose makes the poison and excess oxygen actually can poison humans. Deep sea divers have to worry about excess oxygen inducing seizures if they mess up their breathing gasses enough. And even 100% oxygen at regular pressure will slowly damage the lungs, something ICUs have to worry about.

Nick Lane had a great book about oxygen, Oxygen, which maybe isn't as good as his book about mitochondria but is well worth reading.

"Our descendants are going to enjoy an enormous wealth of imagery and videos for events that will to them otherwise be just something from a history book. "

The question will be at some point, will they be able to tell it apart from AI generated fake ones? (and will they care?)

Already now youtube recommends me some obvious AI generated garbage as WW2 documentations. And that was just garbage generated for attention (ad money). Once big actors with money want to rewrite history and flood the web with fake images to spread certain narratives, then new challenges will arise.

I hope enough people still care about facts and guard them.

That's a good point. When I wrote my comment only my optimistic side was engaged ;-). The pessimistic side shares your concerns. I hope that we develop some technologically diffult-to-overcome solutions for preserving the integrity of media. Like methods for cryptographically signing raw content from a digital camera that guarantees it was produced by that hardware. Not a panacea, but a step in the right direction I think.

It's the "if you think the news is all lies, bullshit and agendas you should see the history books" meme.

Lord knows what falsehoods of today will become the official record of tomorrow never mind what lies of the past we just repeat because they're what got written down.