It is configurable. It can be used to charge (either way), for data transfer, or for remote control. You can set it up with a fixed behavior, or to request permission everytime you plug a data cable.
As far as I've ever heard, "le code" used in a codebase is uncountable, like "le café" you'd put in a cup, so we would still say "meilleur que tout le code que j'ai vu en 20 ans" and not "meilleur que tous les codes que j'ai vus en 20 ans".
There is a countable "code" (just like "un café" is either a place, or a cup of coffee, or a type of coffee), and "un code" would be the one used as a password or secret, as in "j'ai utilisé tous les codes de récupération et perdu mon accès Gmail" (I used all the recovery codes and lost Gmail access).
> it also changes the rule for the pronunciation of the last consonant of French words.
This was a very well explained distinction, with the exception of you using "Noël" as one of the examples, since "Noel" would still have a sounded "L". It would be weird to a French speaker but would most likely end up being pronounced somewhat like the English "null".
> And yes Moët (the champagne) is pronounced "moh-ett" in France and by French speakers.
My favorite Moët mispronunciation is one that it took me several months to understand: Russians pronounce it as if it was spelled in Cyrillic, so they say "mah- yacht".
There is a famous MORGENSHTERN song which I only understood was about champagne when I saw the music video for the first time.
> This was a very well explained distinction, with the exception of you using "Noël" as one of the examples
Do you have reason to believe it's true, or are you commenting to say that it would have been a well-explained distinction if it were true?
I tried to verify it, and found nothing but evidence that implicitly or explicitly contradicted it.
(The best I could find in favor were the English wikipedia page on the house of Perrier-Jouët, which lists a pronunciation with /t/ -- the French page lists no pronunciation at all -- and the 19th-century book Comment on prononce le français, which confirms that maïs is pronounced with a final /s/, but lists it without comment alongside several other words that feature the same irregular pronunciation of "-s", none of which include a diaeresis. I'm compelled to infer that the realization of /s/ in maïs has nothing to do with the diaeresis.
The way I was taught this in French school is that the diaeresis causes the letter to be pronounced separately, so in maïs the "¨" forces you to say "a" and "i" separately (ah- ee) instead of together ("eh" as in "mais" which is an existing French word).
It only affects the diphthong AFAIK, so I agree with you that it's not the reason for why the "s" is pronounced out loud.
The final "s" is usually silent in French and I'm not aware of any rule for what defines the exceptions.
The outcome for the final "-s" is somewhat influenced by the origin of the word, as you would pronounce "bis" differently depending on whether you mean "beige" or half-whole-wheat bread, vs. if you mean "repeated" (from latin).
There are a bunch of such weird exceptions, like "vis" (screw, or past tense of "to see") or "bus" (bus, or drank) which both can be pronounced either depending on their meaning, or "os" which is different depending on plural vs. singular.
For the ending "-s" there is also some regional variation. Where I was born, you would normally pronounce the final "s" in words like "plus" or "moins", and I was very surprised as a teenager to meet people from other French regions who made fun of it.
> The final "s" is usually silent in French and I'm not aware of any rule for what defines the exceptions.
I don't think there is a rule. The 19th-century book said this:
>> L's s'est maintenu ou définitivement rétabli depuis plus ou moins longtemps dans maïs, jadis, fi(l)s et lis (y compris fleur de lis le plus souvent, malgré l'Académie); dans metis, cassis, vis (substantif) et tournevis. La prononciation de ces mots sans s est tout à fait surannée; on ne peut plus la conserver que pour les nécessités de la rime, et encore!
The reference to /s/ being maintained or reestablished, and the pronunciation without /s/ being out of date, suggests to me that the rule was that final /s/ was lost (in Parisian French, I guess...), and that there was a specific effort to put it back into some words. But that's speculation on my part.
It seems clear that bus "bus" and maïs "maize" have a final /s/ because they are foreign words. It's less clear to me why they're given those spellings as opposed to something more like busse.
> I'm not saying no one should write marketing copy, if that's your thing, go for it. Take your time, wordsmith. But for others they don't enjoy it or are not particularly good at it
The problem is that the generated "marketing copy" ends up being bland and ineffective (nobody "buys", so the copy fails at its single job) when using generalist LLM tools like eg. ChatGPT.
So in the end, you don't achieve the goal of "getting better copy" from it because neither version (neither the copy you'd have done naïvely without knowing anything about marketing, nor the LLM copy) converts anyone.
As someone who taught marketing for almost 2 decades, I've learned that if the copy does not bring in the people that the product wanted to help, then there might as well be no product.
> you should ask the GP about his use of the word fascist on everything he doesn't like.
If mirror dot org actually existed, you might want to look into it, because your long list of examples has one related to 1930s Germany, and the rest has nothing to do with the political definition of "fascism"?
Your point about legality was valid, but you're undermining it with the sarcasm.
Most likely, those were debris from the interception of missiles flying overhead and being destroyed on their way to a military target.
AFAIK, there have been no confirmed signs of civilian sites being targeted directly, and it would also be unlikely that actual missiles would cause so little damage that you could patch your datacenter up and get it ready to go within hours.
Thanks for the links, which I've reviewed. Allow me to clarify: I meant sources that confirm that the civilian places hit (eg. hotels and residential buildings) were the actual targets.
Local and official news all say that these were hit by debris from intercepted missiles/drones (on their way to somewhere else). There is a major difference between this, vs. if those buildings were directly being targeted.
AFAICT your linked sources indicate that the oil installations and ports were targets, but not the hotels and buildings.
I'm asking in good faith as this makes a significant difference.
I don't see the large difference between a civilian port, a civilian oil facility or a civilian aluminum factory vs a hotel on the topic of whether the Iranians are capable of targeting a civilian data center, however, assuming you are curious, here goes
Finding these take time so I am sorry if this is going to be the last of these sources I'll paste, for example Bahrain luxury apartments building being hit:
If you take investments, your investors will most likely own shares of the company (except in specific early-stage scenarios like YC's SAFE). Sometimes major investors will have board seats or voting shares. This happens in normal private companies, not just public ones.
> I joined Anthropic with the impression that the responsible scaling policy was a binding pre-commitment for exactly this scenario
Pledges are generally non-binding (you can pledge to do no evil and still do it), but fulfill an important function as a signal: actively removing your public pledge to do "no evil" when you could have acted as you wished anyway, switches the market you're marketing to. That's the most worrying part IMO.
reply