Tootfinder

If you reply to me and expect an answer, maybe don't call what I said a "bad faith argument".
What do you want me to say?
"Yes, I posted this to specifically upset you personally even though I didn't actually mean it!"
Or, you know, maybe if it makes you feel angry—figure out why.
Anger is an emotion that just tells you something might be wrong. You should take it as sign to think about why you have the feeling. It might be that there is something the matter with your beliefs or what you're doing.

TIEG-Youpu Solution for NeurIPS 2022 WikiKG90Mv2-LSC
Feng Nie, Zhixiu Ye, Sifa Xie, Shuang Wu, Xin Yuan, Liang Yao, Jiazhen Peng, Xu Cheng
https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.28512 https://arxiv.org/pdf/2603.28512 https://arxiv.org/html/2603.28512
arXiv:2603.28512v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: WikiKG90Mv2 in NeurIPS 2022 is a large encyclopedic knowledge graph. Embedding knowledge graphs into continuous vector spaces is important for many practical applications, such as knowledge acquisition, question answering, and recommendation systems. Compared to existing knowledge graphs, WikiKG90Mv2 is a large scale knowledge graph, which is composed of more than 90 millions of entities. Both efficiency and accuracy should be considered when building graph embedding models for knowledge graph at scale. To this end, we follow the retrieve then re-rank pipeline, and make novel modifications in both retrieval and re-ranking stage. Specifically, we propose a priority infilling retrieval model to obtain candidates that are structurally and semantically similar. Then we propose an ensemble based re-ranking model with neighbor enhanced representations to produce final link prediction results among retrieved candidates. Experimental results show that our proposed method outperforms existing baseline methods and improves MRR of validation set from 0.2342 to 0.2839.
toXiv_bot_toot

I've seen a bunch of "the CA age verification law is the best way to do a bad thing and so we shouldn't oppose compliance" takes, which others are rightly pointing out is a bad stance because it's blindingly obvious that compliance now sets the stage for compliance later and the clearly set up later is mandatory verification of age data. Even if you think that, for example, California's current "progressive" government won't go there, we're all currently seeing just how easy it is for a new government to pick up the oppressive tools the "good" government was using "restraint" with and put them to worse ends.
On the other hand, I'll freely admit that distros *do* need a way to shield themselves from liability right now. The clear (to me; IANAL) correct solution is to say on your website "don't download this OS if you're in a jurisdiction where it's not legal for us to provide it."). Assuming this does put you in the clear liability-wise, it has several positive effects:
- Stops zero people from downloading it.
- Makes it clear that your project will not collaborate with fascists/oppressive regime enjoyers.
- Means that when the next law makes verifying user ages mandatory (and/or explicitly requires using Palantir-adjacent services to do so) you've already got a strategy in place and there's no need for a "debate" in your "community" about compliance.
- Gets users more practice with "the law is malicious/needlessly bureaucratic/oppressive; let's ignore it" which to be honest people in general clearly desperately need at this point.
- Is the most effective political move if you want to resist the way things are going. Forcing the other side to explain why "California bans Linux" is good rhetorical strategy. Make *them* try to explain "well it's actually not so harmful since we let users set it themselves" and answer your follow-up "but what if next year the requirements change; I just refuse to go along with this slippery slope stuff and I'm not bothered if that means you want to *ban* me."
#AgeVerification