To me, these reeks of "We have learned AI is bad press for users so ot failed, but it was good press for investors at the time. How do we appease both?"
Commentor is not saying they should do this. They are doing this.
“The penalty is a 1-year ban from arXiv followed by the requirement that subsequent arXiv submissions must first be accepted at a reputable peer-reviewed venue,” Dietterich wrote.
arXiv has postprints, too, and it means that once a journal has accepted your work, you can prerelease before they publish.
But yes, they are effectively telling the research community to get their shit together before submitting, or pay the price.
As someone who's career depended on presentations for a while:
Never build animations in-slide (unless they are purely aesthetic).
Instead:
Build multiple slides which duplicate the previous and add new boxes with transitions on the slides. Bonus: change the title on each build to cover the key point.
Sure, they take longer to edit. But that leave-behind export to PDF always works.
CVEs aren't an indication of poor quality. Speed to resolution is. It's not often devs themselves are finding CVEs, it's the community.
At the core, regardless of what a C suiter does to the marketing, the state of the FOSS repos is what matters. Since they already walked back the "always free" comment this whole debate may be moot, so time will tell. Hopefully the rest of the company and the public sway them to continue to support it properly themselves.
I'm 100% sure I haven't seen all the 'pro ai' posts, but the ones I have seen are not nuanced. They're very likely bots, and all-in on, or argumentative for, AI.
The financial transaction of purchasing a health plan is not regulated under HIPPA. Only the claims within that organization associated with treatment.
To me, these reeks of "We have learned AI is bad press for users so ot failed, but it was good press for investors at the time. How do we appease both?"