Yes, it is easy, buth then, that shows only on your own computer, and others loading the conversion won't see your change on their screens. Here, TFA gives a link to the gemini conversion, on the gemini site, that ends with this response, and everyone can see it, so that rules out the page edit trick. So if we are looking for explanations other than the probable "hallucination", we need to assume either a hack on the gemini website, or a hack on gemini itself through clever prompting (which would require the prompter to know that the output was there in the first place and to find a way to surface that answer).

Googling the text of the AI output yields a lot of Tiktok pages from months ago with this exact text. Sounds like a spamming bot that commented a lot there (and most probably elsewhere), and then, well, garbage in, landfill out.

If anything, people who manage to bypass captcha will be fine with having to simulate random cryptographic keys (which, btw, will be a nice thing for actual humans too, to avoid being identified through their actual physical key).

'*Dead', of course

... Time for a reboot of 'Deak Like Me' I guess.

So, if I may paraphrase that: "Recruiters have decided that in order to handle the huge amount of applications they have to manage, they can fuck basic politeness and leave unlucky applicants in the dark." And once they do that, they basically set the example for applicants to legitimately decide that, in order to handle the huge amount of applications they have to manage, they would fuck basic politeness and leave unlucky recruiters in the dark.

Now, I understand that selecting one person, or three, out of 200 may require automation, and I didn't claim automation was bad (heck, I make a living out of creating software); but one can automate the top 3 extraction and at the same time not and act like a dick to the 197 others. It just takes, well, not being a dick when getting that HR software done. And not being a dick would set a positive example which might, you know, incite applicants to, in turn, act more politely too.

(plus, I realize that the automation excuse is actually a worse excuse for recruiters than it is for applicants, who do things manually and therefore incur a much bigger effort per offer; sending 197 automated rejection messages is cheap for a recruiter, much cheaper than manually sending 197 cancellation notes is for an applicant.)

... Which they [1] chose to use, knowing (or even possibly having specified) said software's behavior, which, consequently, makes it their fault indeed. "It's the computer's fault" stopped being a valid excuse at least 20 years ago (and even before then it wasn't).

[1] "They" being the recruiting companies as entities per se, of course, not the individuals working there and who have to use a piece of software which they quite likely were not involved in specifying.

As far as the look is concerned, I don't care that much -- looks and styles come and go. But I would have preferred it that news.google.fr still show the French news, not the US ones. :)

It depends.

In some cases, you want to allow goto statements, for instance because they help manage failure handling without adding condition or exception constructs.

In some case, you want none of these gotos, because you are using processes or tools which are (partly or entirely) not compatible with them, and you need these tools to work more than you need gotos.

In some cases, you don't want recursivity because the contex does not favor them (think embedded SW with restricted stack size).

In some cases you want recursion because it makes code simpler and closer to the principles behind it, thus more maintainable.

In some cases, you want class-like constructs in C be don't want C++ because the legacy code, people involved, time alloted, or general context just does not allow you to rewrite the whole thing.

Etc.

You mean they'll all be clones of Count Rugen?

Heh... Make that isotropic.

Alright, let's go over this too:

Note: you have just repeated the URL from the article; just repeating a source does not make it any more genuine, and may make it actually less convincing.

If this were an alternate source, I'd consider that it might lend more credibility to the assumption that the putative leak is genuinely what it is purported to be. But this is not an alternate source for it; rather, it is the EFF's analysis is of the very same putative leak indeed, to the URL. It therefore does not give said putative leak more credibility.

Again, an analysis the same putative leak, to the URL, not an alternate source. As an opinion piece on the question of paying for news excerpts, it is certainly relevant; as a proof that the purported leak is genuine, it is not.

Note that I do not belittle the EFF or Reda's analyses, and I certainly don't think less of their opinions on copyright; my point was initially, and still is, "how do we know rather than assume that this is really a leak of a EU Commission document intended to be the Commission's proposal?" and I find no convincing answer to this question in opinions based on the very assumption I am questioning.

(oh, and before anyone asks, or skips the asking and states outright: I find the idea of trying to make news "sources" collect pay for excerpts of their "content" bad in several respects, including for the very ones it is supposed to benefit. But just because I disagree with a document does not make that document genuine, nor does it allow me to disregard checking whether it is. Fact-checking is -- well, should be -- anisotropic.)

Alright, so... The document does not originate from an official EU website. It has no actual date, or more to the point, it has a conspicuously "redacted" date showing only the year. No known author either, not even an obscure reference to an author's initials. OK, 180+ pages is enormous for a hoax, but just because it does not have all obvious markings of a forgery does not make it genuine. And just because it is genuine does not make it something "the EU Commission is planning". So... I'll wait for a more official source for the moment.

Note that the EOMA-68's HW and SW is Open Source, which means — among others — that:

• - your EOMA-68 won't sport any hidden feature which you shouldn't know about;
• - your OS will not stop being maintained at some point just because "the product is not on our catalog any more";
• - you can actually fix (or have a more technically inclined friend fix) OS or firmware bugs without having to wait until a company issues an update (if it ever does—see previous point);
• - you have a much better chance of being able to diagnose and possibly repair (or have a friend fix) a hardware issue on your EOMA-68 or laptop housing than you have on a standard computer;
• - you can actually improve and extend the SW of your EOMA-68 as you see fit.

But better yet: the laptop housing's Embedded Controller, the microprocessor which controls the keyboard, track pad, power and a few other things, is open too!

Add to this the fact that the track pad is actually a LCD and touch screen, and the possibilities are endless. You could develop new features such as:

• - configuring your track pad to provide any number of buttons and scrolls and show them;
• - making that track pad configuration vary depending on the context.=;
• - showing and managing volume controls on the track pad;
• - main screen locking/unlocking from the track pad;
• - supporting your non-US keyboard layout directly out of power-on (ok, this one will be somewhat limited by the USB HID specs);
• - playing console-like games directly on the track pad. :) (possibly even with the EOMA-68 card off if the game can fit in the EC entirely)
• ...

It's important to note the EOMA-68's HW and SW is Open Source, which means — among others — that:

• - your EOMA-68 won't sport any hidden feature which you shouldn't know about;
• - your OS will not stop being maintained at some point just because "the product is not on our catalog any more";
• - you can actually fix (or have a more technically inclined friend fix) OS or firmware bugs without having to wait until a company issues an update (if it ever does—see previous point);
• - you have a much better chance of being able to diagnose and possibly repair (or have a friend fix) a hardware issue on your EOMA-68 or laptop housing than you have on a standard computer;
• - you can actually improve and extend the SW of your EOMA-68 as you see fit.

But better yet! The laptop housing's "EC", the microprocessor which controls the keyboard, track pad, power and a few other things, is open too!

Add to this the fact that the track pad is actually a LCD and touch screen, and the possibilities are endless. You could develop new features such as:

• - configuring your track pad to provide any number of buttons and scrolls and show them;
• - making that track pad configuration vary depending on the context.=;
• - showing and managing volume controls on the track pad;
• - main screen locking/unlocking from the track pad;
• - supporting your non-US keyboard layout directly out of power-on (ok, this one will be somewhat limited by the USB HID specs);
• - playing console-like games directly on the track pad :) (even with the EOMA-68 card off if the game can fit in the EC entirely)
• - ...