Getting to know the views and values of your date is not a weird thing to do on the first date. If it’s a question that annoys them, they should consider why.
I like it, putting established knowledge in skill form is not difficult or great innovation, but definitely useful and worthy to share. I would critique one or two things: For skills like this, which are intended to be shared and but at the same time not complete "frameworks", I think skills should be atomic. For this i would split it into the technical writing guidelines (tone, grammar, etc) and the workflow (drafts, review, the specific folders).
Agents should be able to discover and load both without a problem, but it makes it easier for other people to pick-and-chose.
Secondly, I'd combine one/two into one markdown file each. I don't want the reviewer / writer to selectively read those, since a review always needs to apply all of them. I get that the goal of scoping the review procedure into 10 individual steps is to create more focus on each task by giving it its own procedure step, but in my experience doing small focused steps like that will lead to much longer review times and worst case a very fragmented text, because small edits are applied on top of each other, without considering the big picture. A recent LLM with sufficient reasoning should be able to apply all rules in one go.
I have been using parakeet TDT v3 with just 0.6B params and its insanely fast (feels instant, even on M1 Air). The accuracy is all I could ask for - I dont see the benefit of a much larger 4B model?
Not knocking your app, but asking before your app seems very focused on one model, while others allow the user to pick according to their needs.
In legal and public opinion distributions and authorship might not be looked at with such a technical lens, especially in a country trying to ban encrypted communications. A muddying between the two could easily be constructed intentionally, or unintentionally by ignorance of executive and judicial powers.
That would depend on the folks implementing the API
In it's current state, I'd look at the API to check for reserved / premium names (or something that's profane).
If it makes sense contextually: imagine if you were building the next Twitter. I'm guessing you'd want to have a way to charge for premium names and in-turn need a way to detect what's premium. For the most part, first and last names are pretty premium and people pay (they do!) for such usernames.
In Chapter D.7 they describe: "The complex reflection in water is interpreted by the network as a distant mountain, therefore the water surface is broken."
This is really interesting to me because the model would have to encode the reflection as both the depth of the reflecting surface (for texture, scattering etc) as well as the "real depth" of the reflected object. The examples in Figure 11 and 12 already look amazing.
While the situation in Europe is, of course, diverse, the culture in Germany (which is often looked to as a thought leader in the eu) is strictly to disallow and discredit any substantial criticism of the „only democracy in the Middle East“. Usually under a blanket accusation of antisemitism. Especially due to germanys history, this claim can be brought forward and be spread in a news cycle without substantive scrutiny. The fact that conflating the State of Israel with jewish people could be met with the same accusation is largely ignored.
If you are interested in the topic on a high level I suggest the following starting points
United Nations: „UN experts urge Germany to halt criminalisation and police violence against Palestinian solidarity activism“ as well as numerous statements by amnesty international or the Wikipedia Section „Restrictions on Pro-Palestinian expression“ of the article „Censorship in Germany“
In the post they described that they observed errors happening in their testing env, but decided to ignore because they were rolling out a security fix. I am sure there is more nuance to this, but I don’t know whether that makes it better or worse
reply