I'm from Portugal. I'm not aware of any difference regarding that word in particular, but tbh I wouldn't know. I'm always surprised with some of the differences I find from time to time.
I can tell you though, that using the word "periferia" is actually common in some place (although a bit rare in most). It's mostly used as a synonym for 'around the borders'.
The example you've mentioned:
"move the burgers to the periphery of the barbecue", actually seems perfectly fine. It seems a little bit over-detailed, I guess that a bit context-dependent but I wouldn't bat an eye to the equivalent of "move them to the periphery".
From what I recall 'periferia' is also commonly used in TV news.
In case it wasn't clear (I don't think anyone has mentioned this, but maybe I missed it), it's not that "periphery" is overly-detailed, it's just an overly-formal, uncommon word. I think the more common phrase would be "move the burgers to the side of the barbecue". "Edge" might also be used too, which is probably a little clearer.
zyper.com which was adquired by Discord, tried the same approach, but I think there was always the issue of the advertising platform.
The biggest public forums now-a-days are org-owned online platforms. Even if you have amazing content creators, you still have to find a way to co-exist with the platform, controlled by giants.
I too, see value a potentially transformative business model, but it still seems a hard place to start in until you've achieved a good enough network effect.
It was created for human readability, but always with machine interop in mind, otherwise English/<NatLang>, would prob. do just fine in most cases, especially if sprinkled with some markup.
I don't think I've have ever met a software engineer in Portugal that is on the "Ordem de Engenheiros". It's far more common, because indeed they're legally bound, with civil engineers, material engineers and such.
That may also be true for some areas, but you can def. sign a contract for software development with just a generic business license.
There are certainly creative ways to sign the contract in order to avoid that requirement, after all we belong to the European nations that tend to be creative when it is time to comply with the law.
For example, I knew some consulting shops that had one poor soul that signed all contracts and hoped for the best.
Even if those they did get approved were actual security holes (not benign decoys), all that it validates is no human is infallible. Well CONGRATULATIONS.
Right. And you would need a larger sample size to determine what % of the time that occurs, on average. But even then, is that useful and valid information? And is it actionable? (And if so, what is the cost of the action, and the opportunity cost of lost fixes in other areas?)
Open Source is not water proof if known committer, from well known faculty (in this case University of Minnesota) decides to send buggy patches. However, this was catched relatively quickly, but the behavior even after being caught is reprehensible:
> You, and your group, have publicly admitted to sending known-buggy patches to see how the kernel community would react to them, and published a paper based on that work.
>
> Now you submit a new series of obviously-incorrect patches again, so what am I supposed to think of such a thing?
If they kept doing it even after being caught, is beyond understandable.
1. What would be the point of a deepfake prohibition? The tech is here and it can be useful. Prohibition only leads to further issues legislating against actual bad actors.
2. People like images/videos, people mostly trust images/videos, but for that same reason they're commonly the best tools to deceive and deceit. Here's to hoping that deepfakes will increase their scrutiny and awareness.
> “users of AI systems who use the same to generate or manipulate image, audio or video content that appreciably resembles existing persons, objects, places or other entities or events and would falsely appear to a reasonable person to be authentic [or truthful], shall disclose that the content has been artificially created or manipulated. This obligation shall not apply where necessary for the purposes of safeguarding public security [and other prevailing public interests] or for the exercise of a legitimate right or freedom of a person and subject to appropriate safeguards for the rights and freedoms of third parties.”.
So, if "for the public good", it's all good for government and others to fake all they want without disclosing that manipulation has taken place.
Weird exceptions indeed. I don't know in which case it would apply.
To me, it just sounds like this is a "low priority" law.
For example, if you are allowed to use deception, for example in the context of a criminal investigation, or if a citizen needs to protect himself, then the new law doesn't change that fact.
It's incredible that "safeguarding public security" is unqualified, there should be a law that specifies exactly how such things are evaluated or it should be forbidden to put such loopholes in law.
My respect for law as a field of study is starting to be around the same as my respect for finance as a legitimate business.
The people who actually study how to write law are mathematicians (including to various extent the applied mathematicians, which range from programmers through engineers and all the way to the probability theorists a.k.a. "scientists").
One day I hope we can clear up the misunderstanding in our society about the extent of our reliance on mathematics and stop acting as if "we cannot engineer solutions to social problems" - these glorified scammers that write the law and run the economy are the cancer that is killing everything.
I can tell you though, that using the word "periferia" is actually common in some place (although a bit rare in most). It's mostly used as a synonym for 'around the borders'.
The example you've mentioned: "move the burgers to the periphery of the barbecue", actually seems perfectly fine. It seems a little bit over-detailed, I guess that a bit context-dependent but I wouldn't bat an eye to the equivalent of "move them to the periphery".
From what I recall 'periferia' is also commonly used in TV news.