At the rate things are changing, retroactivity is moot.

What you see as evidence of a weak case I see as evidence of the judges being responsibly cautious, and affording the photographer every reasonable opportunity to make their case. I would need to see additional evidence before I took a statement beginning "at this time..." as stronger evidence than something subsequently stated by the same party.

As it happens, the final decision is not that the disqualified photographer was intentionally cheating, but that the video was ineligible for the competition.

Alloying copper with tin to make bronze produces a material which is stronger and more durable than either component, and this works because the tin disturbs the copper's crystal lattice, which restricts the mobility of dislocations, which in turn reduces the plasticity of the alloy.

I do not know if cellulose fibers have a similar effect in ice, but in general, if you can trade the feature that is causing a problem for one that will not, you are improving things.

Aka it makes it less brittle, which ultimately makes it stronger?

It makes it less ductile, which means it's harder and more resistant to deformation. Bronze is more brittle than copper.

Adding fibres to already brittle materials improves their resilience to tensile forces mostly

So you’re saying it makes it more brittle? Because the opposite of ductile is brittle.

Or are you saying it increase yield strength, because that is a separate property, yes?

If the temperature dependency is implemented via a deterministic pseudo-random algorithm, then they are deterministic. If, on the other hand, the output is at least partially causally dependent on a source of environmental randomness, then, even though everything 'inside the box' is deterministic, the process as a whole may or may not be, depending on whether the source of environmental randomness is, and that is ultimately a question about fundamental reality.

The upper layers of detectors are buried over a kilometer below the surface in order to shield the array from most cosmic rays.

In practice, this would still leave the RPi Foundation with the warranty and support burden generated by the "reseller's" activity.

For every user asking questions and facing issues for such-or-such firmware or software support they need in their projects, that same user would have appeared regardless if their Pi came from RP directly or through a reseller.

Every board sold would have been an extra user, the reseller isn't adding full users (although they may increase the indirect customer base!), so even gaining a user through a reseller increases the amortization divider for the support burden.

Now lets consider RAM chip support burden, the original Pi RAM chips can have issues generating support burden, and so can the reseller RAM chips. Unless RP foundation refuses to upstream link training / RAM bringup patches from resellers, there is no real additional support burden.

In fact if RP were a little more creative, they could have tried contacting the resellers to explain they can continue their modding business as long as they advertise it clearly as modified, and to inform them they will be receiving units that didn't pass the RAM tests from the automated lines, since they're going to desolder the chips anyway, this can save costs for RP foundation.

A point of view best appreciated from a semi-reclining position.

Thank you for this interesting information.

I also wondered why trains were supposedly fatal to the law of deodands whereas ships were not. My spur-of-the-moment, totally uninformed guess was that, in the case of shipwrecks, the sea (or, more generally, the marine environment) was regarded as the killer. The scenarios that Richard Posner is writing about seem somewhat different, however, at least in that after a shipwreck more serious than a calm-water grounding, there's often nothing much to seize.

Haven't read the article, but there are far more accidents at sea than just shipwrecks, which would be probably the most extreme type of accident.

Train owners were mostly local versus possibly foreign ships?

Bend's developer has posted a well-argued response here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49753898

I am glad I saw it, as now I am interested in learning more about Bend.

You are not wrong, but I think atleastoptimal's suggestion was that descriptions like "next-token predictor" are often used to imply that there's not much to see here, perhaps with an implied "obviously" in there. "Stochastic parrot" seems to be a case in point: no-one expects intelligent, informed conversation or working software from a parrot - not even the eternally-resting Alex.

I don't that's a fair description of either 'next-token predictor' or 'stochastic parrot'. Both of those terms describe mechanism, not value--the fact that people squawk that the terms are minimising is projection on their part, not inherent to the phrase.

Words and expressions often have both colloquial and literal meanings. Trying to argue away the colloquial meaning under the guise of the literal meaning is just another form of whooshing.

Sure, but just because you think a colloquial meaning exists doesn't mean you're correct. It particularly doesn't mean that if you're seeing other people (that you don't like) use a term you yourself don't use, and you're jumping to conclusions about it without consideration.

As a description of stochastic parrot it is 100% fair. The term emphasises the system's absence of understanding.