I mean, do whatever you want that doesn’t hurt people around you. But when it hurts them, it’s time to ask whether our own convenience is worth the pain we’re causing.
Why is the airplane that chooses to place seats so close together not on the hook for all of the blame in this scenario? We could just offer a decent traveling experience for everyone.
Isn't it the passenger's fault for failing to purchase a seat that meets their needs? The airline isn't to blame for offering a cheaper alternative for those who find it sufficient. And other passengers certainly aren't to blame for using the product that they purchased.
Oh, it’s definitely their fault. They brought this about to cram extra seats on a flight, customers be damned. No doubt about it, they’re certainly the root cause.
But when you find yourself in an uncomfortable group situation, it’s good to ask how you can make it better for everyone, or at least not worsen it. “I paid so I’m doing whatever it takes to not inconvenience myself in the slightest” is the origin of “this is why we can’t have nice things”.
It’s different when there’s a compelling physical need here. If the person in front of me has a hurt back and can’t bear sitting upright, and I knew about it, I’d put up with it as best I can in the interest of we’ve all got to get along. But in the scheme of things, not that many people are unable to sit up and not crush their neighbors.
> It’s different when there’s a compelling physical need here. If the person in front of me has a hurt back and can’t bear sitting upright, and I knew about it, I’d put up with it as best I can in the interest of we’ve all got to get along. But in the scheme of things, not that many people are unable to sit up and not crush their neighbors.
How would you know whether or not the person in front of you has a compelling physical need? Are they supposed to explain their health concerns to you in the hope that you deem it sufficiently acceptable for them to do what they can to be comfortable? It’s unreasonable to expect someone in physical pain to suffer the indignity of explaining themselves to someone they don’t know.
Fair point! So when I scream in their ear for causing me pain, your contention is that I’m free to do that and I don’t owe them an explanation. I’m sure that logic will make everyone around us smile and nod their heads in approval.
That seems like quite the leap and will more than likely result in you being escorted off the plane when you reach your destination.
It may well be an inconvenience to you if someone chooses to recline their seat but nobody owes you an explanation. Expecting them to justify themselves to you isn’t a reasonable stance. And given that you don’t know what someone is going through, whether they have a hidden disability, whether they’re in chronic pain, I really wouldn’t advise asking, let alone shouting at them.
Most of the trains north between Preston and Glasgow were being cancelled that day due to the weather. Perhaps knowing they only had one more attempt at landing safely left, Manchester further south seemed like the better bet.
They, along with other people in a similar position to them, have all suddenly become experts in smart home tech.
They have video doorbells, motion sensors, door sensors, etc. All so that they can be alerted to any activity immediately, allowing them to act within the exceptionally short eviction window.
The reality on the ground is that these ridiculous policies are widely exploited.
Yep. Those policies that force the real estate owners to use their properties instead of letting them sit empty and appreciate for profit like in the US are ridiculous. The not-ridiculous policy is allowing them to cripple the entire society for profit by doing the opposite. It works very well.
The actual outcome is that the policy does force people to use their houses and increase the available rental houses.
> ordinary middle-class people.
You seem to have meant 'working-class'. Outside the US nobody calls them 'middle class'. Middle class people in Spain would be white collar professionals who own more than one house. You people are literally making up things about a country that you don't know about.
No. It does not cause issues for the 'working class'. Okupas don't target single home owner working class people. They target at least white collar professionals, and actually much richer aristocrats and investment funds.
> subsidising them is the role of the state, not a job for individual citizens.
That's what you think. Your culture thinks. This is a different society. They think differently.
Even if you are not, your philosophy seems to be from there. Works out to the same.
> I spent 2 years living in Spain
Yeah that should have given you the past, present and future knowledge of all things about Spain.
> Are you claiming that the average Spanish citizen believes that a typical person should be responsible for freeloaders rather than the government?
Excellent example of how you have been talking about a country without knowing about it. Spaniards dont call them freeloaders. Even using that word means that you are American in mentality even if not geographically. The attitude is that if those people need it and some well-off person ends up with okupas in his second house, no one bats an eye and many even would say 'the bastards deserve it'. And anyone who has an extra house is 'well-off'.
I'm merely pointing out that you're assuming ignorance simply because I have a different opinion to you. Having lived there myself, I'd like to think I have something of an understanding of the culture.
Freeloaders, admittedly a charged word, is how I'd view someone who helps themselves to something I've worked to pay for. How is that any different to a mugger stealing your phone or your wallet? After all, they're likely in a worse financial position than you. If you can afford to replace it, let them have at it.
> And anyone who has an extra house is 'well-off'.
I don't want to fall into a strawman here but my interpretation is that you're fine with criminals stealing from someone, as long as they're in a better financial position than you are. It's convenient to imagine that the only people falling victim to this are those who can afford to have their property stolen from them.
- Have you met the reality of working class people there?
- Have you stayed on a touristic city or on industrial areas?
- The real criminals are people from Spain, speculative funds and tourists from all over the world buying property here and not using it. They steal to everybody.
Then we can't hire people for our business because people can't find rent. We aren't paying low, the problem is the crazy rent market.
Banks own 80% of not used living places in Spain. Tell me who is the burglar. Real okupas only squat in this places, I know a lot, and surprise! Banks will get you out faster than anyone else but keep their property unused and rotting. Because they don't care about houses, they only care about land.
Spanish constitution states that housing is a human right. That's the difference. If someone enters to your home, people will bust them, if someone enters to your speculative bargain or summer whim, good luck, people want to live.
> - The real criminals are people from Spain, speculative funds and tourists from all over the world buying property here and not using it. They steal to everybody.
So create a tax for leaving property empty and use that to fund programs to address homelessness.
There are plenty of solutions which aren’t permitting theft.
Banning short term rentals for instance would be pretty effective. There could be other side effects but it’d certainly lead to many second homes being sold.
> We aren't paying low, the problem is the crazy rent market.
I sympathise with this. My assumption would be that imposing punitive taxes on unoccupied properties is the most realistic solution.
If that forces people to sell, supply goes up. If people continue as they were, there’s more money available to do something with.
> There are plenty of solutions which aren’t permitting theft.
There are 'plenty of solutions' which arent permitting theft, and NONE of them work ANYWHERE. The only solution is, well, 'theft', apparently.
> My assumption would be that imposing punitive taxes on unoccupied properties is the most realistic solution.
Another case of just shooting from the hip without knowing anything. There is already a tax on unoccupied properties. It didn't fix anything.
> If that forces people to sell, supply goes up. If people continue as they were, there’s more money available to do something with.
Another example of economic 'theorization' based on the reality of... nothing. The tax is there, it doesn't work. The economic theory has little connection with the actual reality in Spain too, just like elsewhere in the world. Its just a modern religion to justify capitalist profiteering based on 'how things should be'. Except things just don't work the way they 'should'...
> I'm merely pointing out that you're assuming ignorance simply because I have a different opinion to you
Yes. You have a different opinion than me and the majority of Spaniards. Despite that you think that you can make statements on behalf of us. There comes the ignorance.
> Freeloaders, admittedly a charged word, is how I'd view someone
Spaniards don't.
> How is that any different to a mugger stealing your phone or your wallet?
Not different, and per Spanish law, theft up to a few hundred euros is not a crime either.
> It's convenient to imagine that the only people falling victim to this are those who can afford to have their property stolen from them.
Its not 'convenient'. Its how this works. Okupa movement stakes out houses, its owners and goes after the well-off. In a lot of cases they get help from within the community, or the occupier is someone from the neighborhood already. That's what 'professional' okupas help with - by helping poor locals occupy empty houses.
Surely occasionally an unhinged persona occupies someone's only house. But that's rare. The majority of occupation happens locally through the help of activist okupas.
...
Long story short, you have no idea about the culture and society you speak of, despite having lived here for 2 years, and you are still handing out statements and interpretations based on, well, American cultural mentality actually. Spanish culture is different. Its as simple as that. The difference between these two cultures can be seen in how things are in the specific countries.
Not that the other countries that imitate the US and the capitalist mentality are any different - even Scandinavian countries started to experience major inequality after adopting 'investment friendly' practices in the last few years. Americans themselves are escaping to other countries, including Spain, to escape the hellhole that it has become and gentrifying the people there in the process. North Europeans are doing it too - which is actually becoming a problem.
So that mentality doesn't work. It f*cks up societies. Stop preaching it.
I live in a country of people with diverse views. I feel it's ignorant to assume that I'm speaking on behalf of the majority of my fellow citizens.
Quoted from the article:
> Public opinion on squatting is polarised, with some viewing it as a necessary response to systemic failures that leave citizens without affordable housing options. Others see it as an infringement on property rights and a challenge to the rule of law.
If you're actually fine with theft, again going back to the mugging example, we simply couldn't be further apart in our views. I would be curious to know if you're a homeowner but honestly, I don't think either of us are going to gain anything from delving any deeper with this discussion.
> I live in a country of people with diverse views. I feel it's ignorant to assume that I'm speaking on behalf of the majority of my fellow citizens.
You are speaking on behalf of the American mentality that you subscribe to. Thats who 'you' are.
> If you're actually fine with theft...we simply couldn't be further apart in our views
Its not you and I who are far apart in our 'views'. Its the American culture that you subscribe to and, well, the rest of the world's culture who are apart. Even more so with the Spanish culture. Getting flabbergasted at the difference and then 'rephrasing and reiterating' it as a bad thing will not change anything. Spaniards will not consider okupas thieves and the Spanish constitution's right to housing clause wont change.
So yes, this discussion is unproductive as you literally live in a world of capitalist philosophy that is quite distanced from the world that still keeps its humanity. Bye.
I don't agree. It's a non-existing problem that the media insists us to convince otherwise, just to force us to pay for useless and absurdly expensive monthly services.
Poor people being afraid of other poor people, a classic.
It may be overblown by media, sure, let's say we agree on that, but I know of at least 3 cases of very close people that have suffered the issue in the last 3 years alone. It may be my social bubble, but I don't think it's a completely fabricated matter.
> It may be overblown by media, sure, let's say we agree on that, but I know of at least 3 cases of very close people that have suffered the issue in the last 3 years alone.
For curiosity's sake, were the affected people owners of multiple properties or was this issue considering their primary residential homes that they were actively living in?
I know no one who had his first home or summer house squatted. No one.
I've lived here all my life.
I know at least 15 okupas who lived +4 years in properties of banks, unused and not finished, which, after eviction, are still unused and unmaintained. What harm did this okupas do? They didn't contributed to rent inflation, so they did some good.
Having property unused and don't having an eye on it is madness. I wouldn't do it. That's common sense. People think that money buy things. Ok, buy a Ferrari and park it outside of a big city and leave it there during a month.
This law is here to protect the right of housing. Some mafias use it? Could be, but this law works to protect real families and the benefits are much greater than the harm that opportunists do abusing it, this organizations doesn't have anything to do with the okupa movement.
I couldn't agree more. My parents have an "okupa" and they can't even go talk to her or she can sue them. They also have to pay for her electricity or water, otherwise, she has the right to sue them for "endangerment".
And she wasn't even a tenant. She has been there for 4 months now, and the judicial system simply works against home owners, it's crazy!
By that logic, Theranos wasn't a scam either. The hardware existed and it delivered a result. It didn't do what was claimed however and the results were routinely faked.
It was claimed that the R1 would navigate an app like a person would. That it wouldn't matter if the UI changed because the AI would figure it out the same way a person would. It follows a script and breaks when the UI changes.
It was claimed that it would be faster than ChatGPT. The majority of it is a ChatGPT wrapper.
A product exists, sure, but I'd be surprised if anyone feels it met expectations.
Can't find the interview now, but I remember watching it and yes they specifically said that because it is an AI, rather than just an automation script, it is intelligent and will not be thrown off by site redesigns or CAPTCHAs (they have later said that they won't handle CAPTCHAs also).
Turns out that it is just an automation script and it cannot deal with site redesigns or CAPTCHAs.
Edit, just found they have made this claim also which simply doesn't exist at all:
> The R1 also has a dedicated training mode, which you can use to teach the device how to do something, and it will supposedly be able to repeat the action on its own going forward. Lyu gives an example: “You’ll be like, ‘Hey, first of all, go to a software called Photoshop. Open it. Grab your photos here. Make a lasso on the watermark and click click click click. This is how you remove watermark.’” It takes 30 seconds for Rabbit OS to process, Lyu says, and then it can automatically remove all your watermarks going forward.
Regarding its “learning” - it is still a model that needs data. The best you can expect is it will take actual UI sessions (as in users interacting with the website) for specific tasks to build its scripts, and as with any current “large” model it’s not going to update in realtime based on user input alone.
Sure but that’s all in the future. All of the selling points of this device are in future tense. The “model” does not seem to exist, but it’s being “worked on”. Their client app was taken apart and there is nothing interesting there. Their servers were hacked into, and made to run Doom which is funny, and there is no trace of any AI model there.
One of their former engineers gave a statement that LAM is just a marketing term and nothing like that exists.
If all the selling points are in future tense at what point can we call it a scam?
Edit: also the founder’s previous gig was a crypto scam that also promised AI on the blockchain
There is evidently a LAM of sorts given the nature of the queries it can answer. It is able to use agents - something like langchain or ChatGPT tools - in order to perform tasks that may be dependent on other tasks.
The problem is their LAM sucks, and is likely no more than just a task builder prompt on GPT (instead of a model specifically tuned for generating these tasks) using lang chain for resolution. They also have limited tooling, and some of it is already broken.
As for it being a scam. I definitely don’t see how you can offer lifetime ChatGPT with no subscription. So unless they are going to bring in additional revenue somehow it is effectively a ponzi scheme.
You're right, but nobody here cares about the details of data subprocessors and how a lot of nodes in the chain get impacted. It doesn't play well on the internet where short & pithy moral outrage is the level of discourse.
It makes me sad that the initial reaction is gleeful & mean-spirited towards the targets, when if you've ever been involved in something like this you'd hope it would be empathy for what a lot of Snowflake and TM employees are working on this weekend, and anger towards the hackers. It's like people forget that because it's data and the targets are big companies these criminals aren't stealing from real people and making the world a worse place.
I'm wondering whether soon we'll see the outsourced CS chats run through a 'small' efficient LLM to 'clean up' (or in some cases, just re-localize) the English of such workers to match the locale of the caller.
AI hardware has to be an incredibly tough space to be in. Things are moving at such a rapid pace that by the time you launch, you’re already out of date.
I agree, it's a backwards move. Smartphones already absorbed the functionality of discrete devices like cameras, music players, etc. Why anyone would want to go back to carrying more stuff is beyond me.
The norm, as far as I'm aware, is that the losing side is on the hook for the winner's legal fees. Seems like a pretty good deterrent against bringing frivolous claims.
That's true, in certain situations, companies can use the system to make it painfully risky to attempt to take action against them.
There's a very different business culture in the UK when it comes to legal threats and I suspect the fact the loser pays both sides plays a big part in that. As a business owner, I'm happy to avoid more commonplace legal nonsense, even if it means there's potential for huge companies to abuse it.
It's not any and all costs. The court makes the loser pay costs that are proportional and reasonable given the issues in the case. Which makes sense as otherwise Google could indeed tell its lawyers to go on a billing spree to hurt the counterparty if they lose.
From reports wright was already spending a multiple of what his opponents were spending, the risk of having to pay our legal costs was probably not a major factor in his thinking.
He essentially bragged on his slack that the relative costs didn't matter as his goal was ruining his opponents by causing them costs.
A relevant detail is that even though loser pays in the UK they don't pay 100%, so one can potentially make the residual they do pay ruinous.
I can live with the person behind me thinking I’m an asshole.
The airline offers the facility and I won’t sacrifice my own needs for fear of upsetting a stranger.