They're Swiss, so while technically in Europe, they are not in the EU. Maybe they're closer than the US, but they're still a foreign tech company in the EU.
Code may not be, but opening a Merge Request undercover may be unlawful:
> Providers shall ensure that AI systems intended to interact directly with natural persons are designed and developed in such a way that the natural persons concerned are informed that they are interacting with an AI system
Depends if it's a closed loop agent. If the agent opens the request, writes the body and is triggered by an answer on the MR, then I'd expect the law to cover this.
Cloudflare had excellent human technical writers. But for the past months/years they got slowly replaced by AI, and the quality of the posts dove down drastically.
Remember when they had "implemented a serverless post-quantum Matrix server", where they blatantly lied saying it's production ready, when most of the encryption features were not even implemented. (Then rushed to removed the LLM's 'todo' tags from the code).
https://tech.lgbt/@JadedBlueEyes/115967791152135761
AS2 as in Applicability Statement 2? Or Action Script 2?
Edit: For the curious like myself, after more searching it seems to reference Activity Stream 2 which is a W3C standard used by ActivityPub (Mastodon, lemmy, etc)
The moderation tools depend on the implementation of AP, but what I meant is that you depend on each instance's moderation/moderators to be effective at combating spam (and more).
A problem that ATProto will face once/if they really do get decentralized. If some instances are badly moderated, you will suffer the same as with AP
AT does not have instances like AP. You are not tied to the moderation choices of servers. Apps are where moderation happens and is a place where competition can occur. Moderation also largely happens at the network layer, so apps can share moderation or use third party moderation (that is not tied to any app)
It seems like you do not understand the architecture of ATProto and make claims that are not based in reality.
My motherboard has 3 16x PCIe slots, but realistically only one is used for the GPU as the other two are under the mastodon of a cooler needed by the GPU. Can't use a 100G network card if I can't fit it under the GPU. Can't not use the GPU as I don't have an iGPU in my CPU.
He's not advocating from removing PCIe slots, but in practice, it's needed by way less consumers than before. There's probably more computers being sold right now without any PCIe slot than there are with more than 1.
> My motherboard has 3 16x PCIe slots, but realistically only one is used for the GPU as the other two are under the mastodon of a cooler needed by the GPU.
Discrete GPUs generally consume two PCI slots, not three, and even the mATX form factor allows for four PCI slots (ATX is seven), which gives board makers an obvious thing to do. Put one x16 slot at the top and the other(s) lower down and use the space immediately under the top x16 slot for an x1 slot which is less inconvenient to block or M.2 slot which can be used even if there is a GPU hanging over it. This configuration is currently very common.
It also makes sense to put one of the x16 slots at the very bottom because it can either be used for a fast single height card (>1Gb network or storage controller) or a GPU in a chassis with space below the board (e.g. mATX board in ATX chassis) without blocking another slot.
Probably what nudged it to run on prod in the first place
reply