If you book Ryanair, and your concentration slips up for a second, you WILL make a mistake and it WILL cost you money and/or inconvenience you. Then you might complain about that, and be met with smarmy, smug, smarter-than-you people who insist that they fly with Ryanair all the time and never pay too much, people who can't read shouldn't be allowed to book flights, etc. etc.
It's worth avoiding Ryanair just to avoid that scenario.
Maybe it's just me but I can't imagine booking a flight and not paying serious attention the whole time and double checking everything. Even with the high-end airlines you don't want to make mistakes.
I think a lot of the 'attitude' you see is when people complain publicly about things that are entirely their fault. e.g. "They charged me to print my boarding pass, I didn't know I had to do it digitally" - probably because you ignored the multiple emails they sent you over the last month warning you. Or "my bag was fine on the way over and now they say it's too big" - you never bothered to check the size and got lucky on the way over. All of these types of rules have been in place for decades now and it's always the seem people holding everyone up because they think the rules don't apply to them.
The worst experience I've had with booking _ever_ was recently and it wasn't Ryanair. Whizzair rejected my cards (all of them) and then said the only option was a bank transfer. No fucking way am I doing that. Then my partner tried on her app. Every time she went from the payment screen to her banking app to approve the transaction, she'd go back and the entire app had lost state.
I have fond memories of the, I think 1995, Compton's Interactive Encyclopedia. I think it was given away with new computers, like Encarta and Grolier's. I think I did buy the Compton's CD, but at a huge discount, since I bought it grey market (not bundled with a PC, but from a PC retailer).
Flexi discs were cool inserts for some home computer magazines; you'd dub the flexi disc to music cassette, and the noise and beeps were computer programs for your home computer.
Do you see "personal" and something that looks like your name in the path? That's your personal onedrive, like your home directory on a unix system.
See "sites" in the URL? That's a sharepoint site (AKA teams "shared" folder).
The former disappears (after a year) when the user license is removed. The latter is not associated with an individual user, so even if everyone in a team leaves the company it isn't just automatically removed.
Following was wrong and had been edited:
The non-business personal onedrive was a box.com/dropbox/g-drive competitor. Microsoft moved its backend to Sharepoint at some time. (Onedrive for business used Sharepoint from the get-go). The integration of the personal drive, even though it's a descendent from the 'for business' product, is still quite unintuitive in my opinion.
That he backed PQ crypto that turned out to be broken later should be an argument in favor of hybrid (belts-and-suspender) schemes rather than against it. Embarassing behavior amounts to not much more than ad hominems. Hybrid KEMs are a good idea.
I am pointing out a particular cryptographer's abysmal track record in understanding the security of PQ schemes to call into question their current criticisms of PQ schemes. They've always been (in my opinion obviously) fear-mongering in the past. None of this fear-mongering has been right. So I do not put particularly high weight on their current fear-mongering.
This is especially true because they often lie in their fear-mongering. For example, you appear to be a follower of Dan. You seem to think the argument against hybrids is an argument against hybrid KEMs. It's not. That is a lie. Even Dan's recent tirade on the TLS-WG mailing list has been against putting forward an informational RFC on ML-DSA, a (pure lattice) digital signature scheme.
Perhaps you misunderstood this, and Dan accurately described the setting he is fear-mongering over. Perhaps Dan misrepresented things again, as he has been doing for nearly a decade again. I don't particularly care either way. All that matters to me is accurate evaluation of our current options. It is exceedingly frustrating that a high-profile cryptographer seems incapable of doing this, either due to incompetence or malice.
This is why making more neuromorphic NNs is still an active area of research, although they typically all focus on another extremely simplified model (spiking neural networks).
I don't ignore anything. I just refuse to accept the magical thinking around biological machines that are our brains/bodies. There are inputs, there are outputs, there is hidden function.
And it seems that, given enough input/outputs/compute, it is possible to train the necessary function.
Details of how the building bricks look like (matmul, electromagnetism or quantum effects) are not that relevant in the broader picture.
What is missing right now, is the fact that the function in question changes over time in biomachines, while our LLMs are static at inference time.
I mostly agree, but I see two points that might be problematic:
a) The brain might have an entropy source (then it can't be modeled as a function). Trivially to fix, and in some sense, with diffusion models starting from random numbers, AI has done so.
b) The hidden function might be not computable. I would have no idea how that would work, but I think this is what it boils down to if people say "the human brain is more than a machine".
In "peeking under the hood", it says quite honestly "SLAX is purely syntactic sugar."
I think that the XML syntax of XSLT itself was only one barrier for people to adopt XSLT, even in the XML heydays.
The main obstacles appear to me that the execution model is hard for people to graps; you need to think both as a parser (apply-templates/) and in a more declarative style at the same time. The XSLT can be in a completely different order to the document and in fact it can visit nodes in the document multiple times, hopping through nodes in a different order each time, with lovely constructs like apply-template with "mode" and "select" mixed with call-template by "name", plus you get to use xpath and for-each to boot. The control flow changes from the order in the input, to some predefined order, and back depending on when you decide to match(-template) or for-each. There's a lot going on at the same time! Fun times!
Wero is super confusing. They're in the business of acquiring different methods (I don't even know if they always buy them outright or if they merge or they are just associated in some way), branding them ALL wero, and announcing that every payment in every channel will be rolled out SOON via wero, without ever offering specifics.
So in The Netherlands wero is the new name of eCommerce payments, but in another country the new name for peer2peer. But no idea when p2p will launch in the Netherlands or when eCommerce will launch elsewhere. And if the existing services will be degraded when they are internationalized or merged.
It's worth avoiding Ryanair just to avoid that scenario.
reply