This is one way. But one more popular is to force anyone doing serious business to do things that are formally against the law, but you can't function without them (like payments to some officers). In this way you make sure everyone is controlled and you can threaten them easily, no need to invent everything as it's already organized. And if they don't comply, the case is practically ready.
Trump likes to frame is as if Europe said: "Please, USA, protect us, and we will just parasite on you and abuse our relationship to our advantage". Whereas in fact the whole story is the other way round. For example there were limits on the size of German army not that long time ago. And the USA did everything so that its interests are well represented n Europe. Now that Trump plays his "We don't need anyone" theme, the former allies of the USA are forming their own alliances, reduce spending in the USA and no longer feel obliged to turn a blind eye on things that were bothering them for decades.
The only reason why other countries sent their soldiers to stupid wars in Afghanistan and Irak that made no sense then and make no sense now was because they were honoring their commitments and saying OK, we send people to die but if the worst come and Russia attacks us, The USA will do their part. Now Trump openly says all this was for nothing. All trust in the USA is gone as nobody knows what Trump does when he wakes up next day. So we quietly work on making the best of the current situation.
I'm less interested in performative statements and more interested in underlying motivations and incentives. It's not a question of who is "right" but of what the actors get out of it.
Of course Europe was leaning on US defense. This enabled resources to be diverted to social spending instead, something that has become all the more vital as populations age. And it's not clear what the US gets out of defending Europe now. There's no perceived Soviet juggernaut and Russia can't even conquer Ukraine.
> There's no perceived Soviet juggernaut and Russia can't even conquer Ukraine.
It looks a bit like that to be the case, but legally Russia still isn't at war with the Ukraine, according to their own internal law. Hence the use of mercenaries and "volunteers" and the pinky promise that conscripts are not used near the Ukraine.
> Europe was leaning on US defense. This enabled resources to be diverted to social spending instead
While each of these statements seems true, there is an imprecise implication that the USA was sponsoring Europe's social security. There are several problems with this implication, starting from the fact that the USA wanted to be present in Europe and benefited from it. Sure, increasing military budgets means less money is available for other things, including social spending, but increasing it from 2% to 5% like they're doing now or even 9% doesn't mean that Europe stops offering free healthcare and education to its citizens. So while I understand why Trump is promoting this narrative, it is his typical lie.
Frankly, I never understand this usage of "we". Who is "we"? An honest post would be "I'm tired of this anti-AI stuff". (And I feel you as I'm as bored with "look what my claude produced" posts.)
I spent a few days on similar scenario without much success (scenario where one person speaks and then their speech is translated, and I want juts the original or both).
An API call to GPT4o works quite well (it basically handles both transcription and diarization), but I wanted a local model.
Whisper is really good for 1 person speaking. With more people you get repetitions. Qwen and other open multimodal models gives subpar results.
I tried multipass approach, with the first one identifying the language and chunking and the next one the actual transcription, but this tended to miss a lot of content.
I'm going to give canary-1b-v2 a try next weekend. But it looks like in spite of enormous development in other areas, speech recognition stalled since Whisper's release (more than 3 years already?).
It's not just Teams. You need to be constantly vigilant not to make any change that would let them link your MS account to Windows. And they make it more and more difficult not only to install but also use Windows without a Microsoft account. I think they'll also enforce it on everybody eventually.
You need to just stop using windows and that's it.
The only windows I am using is the one my company makes me use but I don't do anything personal on it. I have my personal computer next to it in my office running on linux.
I pay $20 for ChatGPT, I ask it to criticize my code and ideas. Sometimes it's useful, sometimes it says bullshit.
For a few months I used Gemini Pro, there was a period when it was better than OpenAI's model but they did something and now it's worse even though it answers faster so I cancelled my Google One subscription.
I tried Claude Code over a few weekends, it definitely can do tiny projects quickly but I work in an industry where I need to understand every line of code and basically own my projects so it's not useful at all. Also, doing anything remotely complex involves so many twists I find the net benefit negative. Also because the normal side-effects of doing something is learning, and here I feel like my skills devolve.
I also occasionally use Cerebras for quick queries, it's ultrafast.
I also do a lot of ML so use Vast.ai, Simplepod, Runpod and others - sometimes I rent GPUs for a weekend, sometimes for a couple of months, I'm very happy with the results.
I absolutely reject your premise here. I feel like Bush Jr. is very responsible for the state of the world we're in right now. You can track back a whole lot of policies and erosion of democratic norms in our system directly to his administrations.
Or the fact we are woefully unprepared for a peer conflict. We wasted how many trillions in the middle east? We cancelled how many modernization programs to fund counter insurgency programs instead?
reply