The references are almost irrelevant. The banks + fintechs have far more depth than that.

How do you know that the explanations are free from error?

You can still learn from sources that have errors. Many textbooks have mistakes and false information in them, but that didn't stop them from providing educational value to people.

We're talking about LLM's that are designed to be confidently incorrect. Accuracy is a side-effect.

When textbooks are incorrect it is also with great confidence. If you can't spot logical inconsistencies in the material were you actually learning or merely memorizing?

Critical thinking

The EU does not write traffic legislation, it leaves that up to the individual states.

Unlike the US, the EU is a collection of fully sovereign countries.

This was a mental shortcut, to exemplify EU vs US attitude in this case. I am from and live in one of EU countries, I am very well aware of that.

“fully” is optimistic - being a member of the EU means giving up some sovereignty.

No, because in a functioning legislature the offence would be something like 'failing to disclose details', in the same way that refusing to participate in a DUI breath/blood draw would be a discrete offence.

The UK driving licence authority (DVLA) also has a period in which you can’t conduct a range of transactions overnight, but that’s because it interfaces with systems that still run batch jobs overnight and the cost of making it all 24/7 simply wasn’t worth it considering the demand.

Really having common maintenance windows makes things way easier. If you already have a service with a limited geographical range its not bad.

I mean one thing we have learnt from Epstein is that the 'elite' don't spend much time crafting the perfect email!

Very true, and it's not just creepy elites either. Before I got into tech I worked a blue collar job that involved zero emailing. When I first started office work I was so incredibly nervous about how to write emails and would agonize over trivial details. Turns out just being clear and concise is all most people care about.

There might be other professions where people get more hung up on formalities but my partner works in a non-tech field and it's the same way there. She's far more likely to get an email dashed off with a sentence fragment or two than a long formal message. She has learned that short emails are more likely to be read and acted on as well.

The King has made it very clear that he was entirely unhappy with Andrew's involvement for years, but had Andrew done the right thing and entirely disappeared from public life he might have retained a degree of protection.

He didn't and so he had everything stripped away which sent a very clear message to Government and the police that he was there for the taking.

The 'firm' protects itself ruthlessly. Andrew was too exposed in a too public scandal, they had not alternative but to cut him loose to protect themselves and the monarchy. Governor of the Bahamas was not an option...

"the firm" protects the people realistically in the line of succession. There's a reason harry lives in America these days.

Yes, that's what protecting itself means. In this case things have become so public that the best/least bad option to protect the King and the Prince of Wales is to sacrifice Andrew.

I'm not so positive that's the case. It's fairly well reported that Andrew and Charles have not seen eye to eye for...many decades. Charles kept the peace probably for his mother's sake while she was alive, but even before the major epstein revelations, Charles had been pushing Andrew to the side

Well done you.

Catch all the security holes while you were reviewing it, or did you leave those to the machine as well?

In many jurisdictions (the UK, in particular) charging people to apply for work is specifically illegal.

>The thing is, it will soon become trivially easy to modify your own "text editing environment,"

elisp enters the chat