Oh trust me, I get that the state wants to punish this and set a red line, no doubt about that. That doesn't make the label of terrorist appropriate, there is plenty of things other than terrorism that are illegal. My idea of terrorism doesn't include this form of property damage, and labeling it as such seems to be what sets a dangerous precedent here.
MrKurteous
You sure seem to be right about the broader definition! But legal or not, it still seems absolutely crazy to classify this type of property damage as terrorism to me... I have a hard time to see how to justify that beyond, of course, the technicalities of the definition in the UK
Jag spelar mest på Linux nu för tiden, har Pop OS (jag hade lite strul med Nvidia-grafikkort men på Pop fungerade allt fint), men jag har bara kört via Steam och Proton än så länge! Någon dag ska jag sätta mig ner och lista ut hur jag får igång mina spel från Gog också, det verkar lyckligtvis inte vara så komplicerat :)
Wow this is incredibly cool...!!
Haha oooooh okay, no worries, consider my heart mended!
Just a little note about the word "model", in the article it's used in a way that actually includes the weights, and I think this is the usual way of using it! If you change the weights, you get a different model, though the two models will have the same structure.
Anyway, you make good points!
I have nothing against old school graphics, I love anything that looks awesome, no need to break my heart like that!
I bet they do, but they can't have them because they look waaaaay to good to give away!
I don't know of any studies unfortunately, but I did want to point out that training is not quite a one time cost in practice, because training has already been done loads times and is still being done! I'm theory, if we stopped training all AI and just kept the ones we have, then indeed the training cost would be bounded just like you say, I'm just afraid we're quite far from that.
Yeah, and I really hope we get those carbon tariffs in place despite China's complaints!
I never meant to say that data does not have value, it definitely tells a country how they could best reduce emissions, like in your example by improving the cleanliness of manufacturing products that are exported.
It does not say how sustainably a specific country is operating (or the EU in this case). If you move manufacture abroad e.g. where it's made with less clean energy so it emits more, when counting local emissions this still counts as an emission reduction. It doesn't matter if it's easier to compute if it's wrong, and it seems to be entirely the wrong statistic to use for this article.
I don't know for sure, but I think most products are not usually made in the country they are sold, but I haven't seen data of proportions. I don't trust that it's a decent proxy just because some people gut feeling tells them it is. Data on consumption based emissions exists, and it should be used.
Oh I can tell you disagree with it! I'm quite happy with what I'm focusing on, I can see that you want to have a different conversation than whether it is crazy or not to classify this as terrorism, but I'm afraid I'm not interested in that. I feel like I've made my point clear enough, hopefully you feel the same.