I think I have one explanation why for a website, exposing an MCP servers AND having captchas can make sense.
- an agent loading the real page is waste for the server, because the data sent is a few megavytes, and you don't have the usual returns of an user seeing your ads
- BUT API requests (or here, MCP) are much lighter, a few dozen kB, so that makes the ROI positive again
At least that's my view : please tell me, anyone, if that reason doesn't make sense!
Regulating something they visibly had no clue about, just because they had idle time and paper: Is California trying to speedrun the innovation no man's land of EU?
That's a bit harsh! I go to mass every Sunday (in France) and rarely have political stuff.
When there, it's most often about abortion or euthanasia (of course in a pro-life (or anti-choice) direction, "you shall not kill")
But dull, empty homilies are (alas) very frequent.
Catholicism is different in every country, I would imagine that a church in a secular place such as France would contain itself a bit, because there's no societal expectation that anyone should follow its religion, and therefore the priests have to put in effort into making people stay.
In Poland, where I grew up, the Church still holds a lot of power and prestige, and priests consider themselves to have authority over people's lives. Leaving the church is seen as more of a childish rebellion, and I would often hear mocking remarks about non-believers in homilies.
It also varies inside countries. Some priests are simply more demure than others. The church as an institution certainly prefers the more radical conservatives as you go higher up the chain, but many low level employees that still talk to commoners do realize that these views are going to put off more people than they attract in developed countries. So in the long term they will only be left with a bunch of crazy radicalists and a silent majority that wants absolutely nothing to do with them.
Have you seen the current pope? He's a big step back from the last one. And the reason for this is the cardinals who wanted back, because they were never fully on board anyway. Then again what would you expect from a group where average age is significantly older than even US congress.
The current pope is a little more traditional, but it’s hard not to be more traditional than Francis. However, the cardinals as a whole are more or less on board with the previous pope’s agenda, American bishops a little less so, and many American priests much less so. Outside of America, you may be right (the brewing rebellion in Germany being an extreme counter example).
I would say that the burden of proof is yours first.
But since you asked...
> The church as an institution certainly prefers the more radical conservatives as you go higher up the chain
Where are these "radical conservative" bishops? They're anything but "radical". If anything, they tend toward a soft middle that is very slow to act. Indeed, that's one of the gripes "radtrad" types tend to have. They would prefer more bishops were made in their own image.
Instead, we see bishops aggressively curtailing more traditional expressions of the faith, while permitting plenty of liturgical abuse of, shall we say, a decidedly "untraditional" stripe.
> So in the long term they will only be left with a bunch of crazy radicalists and a silent majority that wants absolutely nothing to do with them.
You can't be serious. If anything characterizes the post-Vatican II Church, it has been the greater influence of "progressive" and "modernist" elements, some of them quite radical. Only in relatively recent times are we seeing a growing, younger crop returning to traditional forms. You can expect that the Church will look more traditional within a generation or two.
Your claim reminds me of those who clamored to make the Church more "relevant". They claimed that if the Church didn't do so, it would lose the youth and imperil the future of the Church.
Instead, what we saw was the reverse. As the Church became more "relevant" - which is to say, more concerned with the temporal and the temporary, conforming to the times instead of shaping men and the times - it became less appealing to the youth. It should be obvious in retrospect. What people desire from the Church is the eternal and the transcendent, not more of the same that you can get elsewhere and in bulk.
So, all that "relevance" produces is a large exit of the youth from the Church. Attend a "progressive" parish and you'll see plenty of empty pews with a few aging boomers. Go to a more traditional parish, and you see the pews brimming with families. These are not isolated cases. These are broad trends.
If you do see a swing toward the traditional, it is not because "crazy radicalist conservative" bishops are concentrating those elements, but because of a process of natural selection. "Relevance", it turns out, is dysgenic. And as the traditional element increases and becomes more visible, so does the visibility of its substance, which is what attracts converts and reverts.
So.. you basically agree, you just don't like the wording because you somehow felt personally attacked? Given your reasoning I suspect you work(ed) for the church in some capacity or are at least deeply involved. But it'll be quite obvious to anyone reading this that it is not exactly an objective opinion.
This is just a sad comment. Please stick to the merit and substance instead of reaching for bizarre speculation about my motives. And no, I do not work or have ever worked for the Church. I am an observer with an above average knowledge of what is occurring in the Church. The idea that I am necessarily less objective for that reason, and less than an ignorant outsider, is ridiculous and fallacious.
And for your information, my motive is correctness. I get annoyed by confidently expressed, ignorant claims posing as knowledge, especially when it is unfair to the accused party.
> So.. you basically agree, you just don't like the wording
No. I disagree with your reasoning, which I took the time to explain in detail and which you seem to have completely ignored.
The last time I attended a mass (Spain) it was about some people in the village that were not helping the church enough (with an activity they had to do but also I think there was some money involved) but it was a bit cryptic, so only the ones that were directed the message to could fully understand it.
Catholics have more then just one book. They have whole libraries of theology and tradition way larger then just a bible. And large lists of saints to refer to.
Evangelical would be closer to one book thing, altrought it would still ve a stretch.
FYI: Chinese models, to be approved by the regulator, have to go through a harness of questions, which of course include this Tiananmen one, and have to answer certain things. I think that on top of that, the live versions have "safeguards" to double check if they comply, thus the freezing.
Should western models go through similar regulatory question bank? For example about Epstein, Israel's actions in Gaza, TikTok blocking ICE related content and so on?
Again, this is a misleading argument. The low carbon footprint in France is the result form investments of the past, while Germany relied on coal and lignite for a long time and only started to transition to carbon-neutral renewables much latter. The result was substantial drop of CO2 emissions form the grid which will continue. You can see it over time here: https://www.energy-charts.info/charts/co2_emissions/chart.ht...
Germany started out with a high amount of coal and lignite (as a domestic source of energy with many jobs depending on it). The carbon footprint dropped with the rollout of renewables according and will be very low once the transition to renewables is completed. It makes no sense to compare it to France, which switched to a nuclear a long time ago. This is relatively easy to understand in my opinion.
Shouldn't this so-called "transition" should be monotonic? The derivative of energy price should be always negative if you're right. It's not. It's very, very, very much not.
If the end state is very cheap energy, why is it the opposite of cheap now?
Look: the "energy transition" is not working. It's done the opposite of work. You have to concede to reality at some point.
I'd advise you take a look at some of Musk's companies:
- Tesla is the top seller of EVs in the US, beating century-old companies.
- SpaceX has left public institutions like NASA and ESA in the dust despite their vastly bigger budgets
- Although it joined late, xAI is now firmly in the top 4 of AI companies worldwide (OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, xAI)
What's the common element between these successes?
Yeah the anti-Elon sentiment on HN seems unique to this platform and maybe reddit. If you go onto any college campus, you'll see a variety of students wearing Tesla or SpaceX merch. Neuralink has a 7 or 8 stage, highly competitive interview process, and most of his companies are internationally recognized and careers with them are highly sought after.
I suspect a lot of people are just upset they got rejected
That Elon Musk let the competent people do their job and didn't meddle too much? Did you know that Cybertruck, Starship and Twitter are the projects where Musk has let his competence "shine" the most?
It's been long-since established that the only reason early Musk companies survived was employees learning how to manage up and manipulate Musk into doing the right things early on...
I'm not OP but that seems like a pretty reasonable assumption. LLM dominance is basically a US thing (Europe is handicapped by the EU and China is handicapped by hardware), and there are only a few companies that are actually competitive in LLM's (OpenAI, Gemini, xAI, Meta, Anthropic). I think top 5 is a safer bet but top four isn't an unreasonable thing to say confidently
xAI has the largest GPU cluster for AI training in the world, and they regularly produce top-ranking models. Companies like mistral produce clever models but they’re functionally just not on the level of things like Grok
Russians would like to have Ukraine in their sphere of influence, but after bungled invasion in 2022 and subsequent grinding war, Ukrainians will go out of their way to be outside of this Russian world. I think we are talking about decades before normalization of relationship between Ukraine and Russia.
- an agent loading the real page is waste for the server, because the data sent is a few megavytes, and you don't have the usual returns of an user seeing your ads
- BUT API requests (or here, MCP) are much lighter, a few dozen kB, so that makes the ROI positive again
At least that's my view : please tell me, anyone, if that reason doesn't make sense!
reply