The real question is that who the fuck connected these things to the public internet in the first place.

Honestly, I didn’t care when a few supermarkets got hit by their own stupidity. That our blood conserves are handled with the same care as fucking frozen shrimps is just horrifying.

Coldblood horses are pretty cool to be honest. Chunky friendly beasts.

All the while it is left to the antifa to stop literal nazis organized in a chatgroup called “Terror 18” from burning people alive… The police knew about it and did fuck all to stop it.

Because close to all prompts users put into ecosias search do not ask for information that China has a bias towards?

Ecosia adopted Mistral in May after moving away from OpenAI, but Kroll said it encountered recurring technical problems, including overloaded servers, and was disappointed with model quality.

Apparently by the measures of availability and quality of output, since that is what they said they were disappointed by. But reading is kinda hard isn’t it?

Which is totally not going to get misused by using it to fill gaps in the regular budget. Right?

You may have missed that there is a war ongoing in Europe, and the threat goes far beyond its current state.

How exactly do you think these two statements are connected?

As soon as the EU and UK start Brexting it’s all over

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

Nope, it’s what many parties in western nations have become.

General policies

• An overriding commitment to fiscal responsibility,[59] even if it entails means testing of social programs.[75][76]
• An overriding commitment to reforming public education, whether by equalizing spending on school districts,[77] offering school choice,[78] hiring better teachers,[79] or empowering existing principals and teachers.[80]
• A commitment to market-based solutions in health care, energy, the environment, etc., so long as the solutions are carefully regulated by government to serve the public good.[81][82] The policy goal, says Matthew Miller, is to “harness market forces for public purposes”.[6]
• A commitment to provide jobs for everyone willing to work, whether by subsidizing jobs in the private sector[83] or by creating jobs in the public sector.[84]
• A commitment to need-based rather than race-based affirmative action;[85][86] more generally, a commitment to race-neutral ideals.[87]
• A commitment to participate in institutions and processes of global governance, and be of genuine assistance to people in the developing nations.[7][88]

Edit: But if your point was, that I made a mistake there: Yes you are right, I meant the political centre not the radical centre.

That argument only makes sense if you think the political centre would protect you from the fight for scraps that is already happening.

There is growing evidence that the political centre will throw even more parts of the population into poverty so that the rich can keep getting richer.

I am not saying the radical parties are necessarily the fix to that, certainly not the radical liberatarian and especially not the radical right.

I’m just saying the radical political centre is also not doing so great at making the economy work for everyone.

This is only a valid argument if you still believe that anyone is able to improve the economic situation.

Without that believe everything becomes a fight for pieces of a decreasing pie.

Which explains increasing formation of tighter in- and outgroups and the increased support for the political ideology supporting this kind of thinking.