@cdarwin@c.im2025-08-29 15:15:54
Credit reporting giant TransUnion has disclosed a data breach
affecting more than 4.4 million customers’ personal information.
In a filing with Maine’s attorney general’s office on Thursday, TransUnion attributed the July 28 breach to unauthorized access of a third-party application storing customers’ personal data for its U.S. consumer support operations.
TransUnion claimed “no credit information was accessed,” but provided no immediate evidence for its claim.
The d…
@arXiv_csAI_bot@mastoxiv.page2025-09-03 11:05:53
Social World Models
Xuhui Zhou, Jiarui Liu, Akhila Yerukola, Hyunwoo Kim, Maarten Sap
https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.00559 https://arxiv.org/pdf/2509.00559
@tiotasram@kolektiva.social2025-07-28 13:04:34
How popular media gets love wrong
Okay, so what exactly are the details of the "engineered" model of love from my previous post? I'll try to summarize my thoughts and the experiences they're built on.
1. "Love" can be be thought of like a mechanism that's built by two (or more) people. In this case, no single person can build the thing alone, to work it needs contributions from multiple people (I suppose self-love might be an exception to that). In any case, the builders can intentionally choose how they build (and maintain) the mechanism, they can build it differently to suit their particular needs/wants, and they will need to maintain and repair it over time to keep it running. It may need winding, or fuel, or charging plus oil changes and bolt-tightening, etc.
2. Any two (or more) people can choose to start building love between them at any time. No need to "find your soulmate" or "wait for the right person." Now the caveat is that the mechanism is difficult to build and requires lots of cooperation, so there might indeed be "wrong people" to try to build love with. People in general might experience more failures than successes. The key component is slowly-escalating shared commitment to the project, which is negotiated between the partners so that neither one feels like they've been left to do all the work themselves. Since it's a big scary project though, it's very easy to decide it's too hard and give up, and so the builders need to encourage each other and pace themselves. The project can only succeed if there's mutual commitment, and that will certainly require compromise (sometimes even sacrifice, though not always). If the mechanism works well, the benefits (companionship; encouragement; praise; loving sex; hugs; etc.) will be well worth the compromises you make to build it, but this isn't always the case.
3. The mechanism is prone to falling apart if not maintained. In my view, the "fire" and "appeal" models of love don't adequately convey the need for this maintenance and lead to a lot of under-maintained relationships many of which fall apart. You'll need to do things together that make you happy, do things that make your partner happy (in some cases even if they annoy you, but never in a transactional or box-checking way), spend time with shared attention, spend time alone and/or apart, reassure each other through words (or deeds) of mutual beliefs (especially your continued commitment to the relationship), do things that comfort and/or excite each other physically (anywhere from hugs to hand-holding to sex) and probably other things I'm not thinking of. Not *every* relationship needs *all* of these maintenance techniques, but I think most will need most. Note especially that patriarchy teaches men that they don't need to bother with any of this, which harms primarily their romantic partners but secondarily them as their relationships fail due to their own (cultivated-by-patriarchy) incompetence. If a relationship evolves to a point where one person is doing all the maintenance (& improvement) work, it's been bent into a shape that no longer really qualifies as "love" in my book, and that's super unhealthy.
4. The key things to negotiate when trying to build a new love are first, how to work together in the first place, and how to be comfortable around each others' habits (or how to change those habits). Second, what level of commitment you have right now, and what how/when you want to increase that commitment. Additionally, I think it's worth checking in about what you're each putting into and getting out of the relationship, to ensure that it continues to be positive for all participants. To build a successful relationship, you need to be able to incrementally increase the level of commitment to one that you're both comfortable staying at long-term, while ensuring that for both partners, the relationship is both a net benefit and has manageable costs (those two things are not the same). Obviously it's not easy to actually have conversations about these things (congratulations if you can just talk about this stuff) because there's a huge fear of hearing an answer that you don't want to hear. I think the range of discouraging answers which actually spell doom for a relationship is smaller than people think and there's usually a reasonable "shoulder" you can fall into where things aren't on a good trajectory but could be brought back into one, but even so these conversations are scary. Still, I think only having honest conversations about these things when you're angry at each other is not a good plan. You can also try to communicate some of these things via non-conversational means, if that feels safer, and at least being aware that these are the objectives you're pursuing is probably helpful.
I'll post two more replies here about my own experiences that led me to this mental model and trying to distill this into advice, although it will take me a moment to get to those.
#relationships #love
@ErikJonker@mastodon.social2025-08-11 13:53:53
a good blog but the most relevant line is "GPT-5 may be a moderate quantitative improvement (and it may be cheaper) but it still fails in all the same qualitative ways as its predecessors" , very true but indeed now using it a few days and i notice those moderate improvements.. And i was already aware of all it's failings.
For me in day-to-day use it is better and that is wat counts for me at least. Oh and always (yes always) check outcomes before you use them.
@paulbusch@mstdn.ca2025-08-20 11:11:49
Good Morning #Canada
In August 1998, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that Quebec could not legally secede from Canada unilaterally. The court's decision affirmed that any secession would require a constitutional amendment negotiated with the federal government and other provinces. This ruling stemmed from a reference case initiated by the federal government following a close referendum on Quebec sovereignty in 1995. Although Quebec was represented at the Supreme Supreme Court hearing, they did not participate in presenting arguments. They essentially ignored the ruling and planned a future referendum, which never happened.
This ruling established an important precedent that Alberta separatists should pay attention to. But details such as this ruling, aboriginal rights, or common sense seem to escape their attention spans.
#CanadaIsAwesome
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/supreme-court-says-quebec-can-t-separate-unilaterally-1.159509
@arXiv_csIT_bot@mastoxiv.page2025-07-29 10:13:02
Construction of non-generalized Reed-Solomon MDS codes based on systematic generator matrix
Shengwei Liu, Hongwei Liu, Bocong Chen
https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.20559 https://
@arXiv_csLG_bot@mastoxiv.page2025-07-17 10:23:10
Optimizers Qualitatively Alter Solutions And We Should Leverage This
Razvan Pascanu, Clare Lyle, Ionut-Vlad Modoranu, Naima Elosegui Borras, Dan Alistarh, Petar Velickovic, Sarath Chandar, Soham De, James Martens
https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.12224
@arXiv_csET_bot@mastoxiv.page2025-08-13 08:10:32
Millisecond-scale Volatile Memory in HZO Ferroelectric Capacitors for Bio-inspired Temporal Computing
Luca Fehlings, Thomas Mikolajick, Beatriz Noheda, Erika Covi
https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.08973
