English is slightly unusual, in that many other languages use the same word for both.

Safe inflects from "save", and other languages use phrases like salve, salvar, спаси, to mean saving, usually of the soul but also of health.

Security, inflection of secure, derives from Old English sicor (siker), means more like "sure", or being certain.

So when they talk about public safety or computer security, other langs tend to use the "secure" word rather than the "save" word. Of course in the modern world, we just use the terminology the industry uses, and security has taken on its current meaning of protection.

Interestingly enough, there is a product/service called Secure Your Soul in Cyberpunk 2077, which plays on this same overlap in meaning.

I think of it this way:

We put iron grills on our apartment balconies.

1. For SAFETY -- prevents the risk of people and kids falling off balconies.

2. For SECURITY -- prevents any intruder from being able to get into the house through balcony.

I am not sure these are accurate though as English is not my first language.

Ik ben daar ... vrij zeker van.

“Security” refers to active protection against existing threats, whereas “safety” refers to the state of being protected.

Recently they were matching the local mainstream far right party, Reform on immigration - so of course now Reform has moved the goalposts.

>>is anything other than what Kier agrees with.

Proposed changes to the the citizenship process for asylum seekers isn't a far right idea? Initially being supportive of trans rights and then walking back on it isn't a far right idea? Kier constantly flip flopping on every issue depending on how the wind blows isn't something that strenghtens the right wing parties all the time? People don't call labour "tories lite" for no reason.

Arguments for stricter controls on immigration are made from across the political spectrum. The left-wing view is mainly because the cheap labour migrants provide mean that not only are they often heavily exploited, but this also drives down average wages for everybody else and increases competition for jobs.

Similarly the left-wing opposition to trans policy is driven by feminist principles and preventing harm to children. Once people see the clash of rights and how policy that favours gender identity over sex disadvantages women and girls, walking back support for it is the obvious next step.

None of this requires any adherence to far right beliefs.

This isn't an argument about immigration - it's an argument about citizenship, and the current proposed implementation contravenes various pacts that UK is the signatory of - namely that asylum seekers shouldn't have their path to citizenship hindered in any way because of the way they applied for asylum. This isn't going to stop anyone from coming over here either, or I think it's extremely naive to think so. Someone getting here from Afganistan to escape the taliban isn't going to think "oh I would go to the UK, but 6 years from now they won't grant me citizenship so I won't". The citizenship application is already extremely thorough and investigates you from every possible angle, the "good character" requirement being tied to being how you arrived here is.................a right wing idea, because it punishes people who would have been otherwise elligable for a citizenship(so you know, live here legally, pay their taxes, never had any problems with the law) but now they won't because of how they arrived here.

>>ls, walking back support for it is the obvious next step.

If it's so obvious, why was this explicitly part of Kier's campaign promises? Because I'll be honest with you - right now I feel like a right melon for voting for him. All the things that were important to me that he highlighted in his campaign he has walked back on(well, almost everything) - so if these changes are so obvious, am I an idiot for believing what was promised?

Again, from my point of view - he(and Labour) are making those changes to not anger certain parts of the electorate. We can disagree on this point, but that's my view on it.

>>None of this requires any adherence to far right beliefs.

To be clear - I don't think Kier Starmer has right wing beliefs himself. But I can definitely see what I'd call "pandering" to those ideas by his party.

Balance that with "keeping the Tories in power would have been far, far, far worse than the mild-right Labour of Starmer, especially now the US has gone for the second series of Lunatics In Power."

Welcome back to 14th century

The fact that politicians had to add law to ban it in the first place is ridiculous on its own. Everyone knows its an insets and it causes birth defects etc.

What next ban sticking fork in a socket. Ban drinking bleach?

That's why Labour is worried about reform - they're confusing their historical voter base with "people who agree with our policies". They're looking for more votes, seeing Reform's numbers increase where they used to be, and working out how they can become more right ring, rather than how can we get more center and left leaning voters to vote for us.

It's the trap the Tories occasionally fall into. Mostly the Tories are a bunch of different parties united by a few specific ideas. It's why they have so much infighting when they're in power - they aren't coherent about what they stand for. Traditionally Labour were clear on what they are, but that seems to be fracturing in the current political climate.

A lot of this got predicted back when Labour became far more center ground in the 90s, at the same time as the traditional power structures of the left waned in influence. What'll be interesting is whether the right cede Reform voters to the left and let them proceed to fight amongst themselves to appease two ideologically opposed voter bases, and become a far more center right party (probably after getting rid of Kemi), or fight for reform voters and leave Labour stronger.

Tune in in 2028 to find out what happens next I guess.

Bearing in mind all models are wrong but some models are useful, I think that one's more useful than left/right, class, or politicalcompass models.

When you say hold back economic growth, what you're really talking about is people dying from starvation.

Population expanded to eat the post WWII agricultural boom - economic growth apparently leads to more mouths at risk of starving.

Why not let populations match economic activity rather than create greater and greater problems with endless expansion and greater resource demands.

ie. You're taking as gospel something that needn't be.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_flag_traffic_laws

Roads would have to be striped properly and there would have been an international Consortium to determine whether people should drive on the left or the right hand side of the road. That would still be ongoing of course

In hindsight not nearly enough limitations and caution, slower growth would have ideally come with better recognition of the risks and better appraochesto minimising externalities.

Er... and then what?

> This could see Britain hit with tariffs of up to 21 percent on exports if, as indicated by Trump’s trade adviser Peter Navarro last night, VAT is considered by the administration as a tax on imports.

is particularly insane. How can there be any negociation when one side is either blatantly lying or completely deluded? The fact that it is even considered a serious position to take for a major trading power is nuts.

No amount of sanding off DEI edges is going to matter if the US disregard truth and just want to inflict pain until the other side caves.

They have pivoted to blaming the EU for everything and repeating lies of the same sort as the VAT lie. Coincidentally, the Kremlin is also now blaming the EU for everything.

This is especially embarrassing since Sacks himself has always blamed the US before.

We are now in a purely business based environment and the EU/Britain had better learn fast to take care of their own business interests before others carve up the world.

There's no if about it. The Trump administration entirely disregards truth, and parrots blatant lies from the kremlin.

Is there precedent for this? This seems… historically significant to say the least.

That old rhetoric again.

They are trying to push a law (have pushed?) that brands anyone with an AI capable of generating cp a certified pedo.

So basically any diffusion model. Or in fact any llm? I imagine you can ask an LLM to generate you sketchy svgs.

Secondary thought to that, what about scary illegal texts telling you how to make explosives or hack. Sorry guys better brandish you a terrorist for having a local llm.

The distinction between illegal porn, models that are fine tuned to write illegal porn, and general purpose models that may be capable of writing illegal porn but aren't fine tuned to it is going to be an interesting one for the law to figure out. A microcosm of many larger issues, really - maybe even reaching as far as general purpose computing (imagine a GPU that won't run unsigned models).

There was a private members bill in 2023 [1] that didn't go anywhere, we signed up for the Council of Europe's Framework Convention on AI in 2024 [2], and there was a consultation on copyright and AI launched in Dec 2024 [3]. There's a bill promised in 2025, but we don't really know what it's going to include (any assumptions seem to be off the table since the AI summit in Paris). I think that's it.

[1] https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/lln-20... [2] https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-signs-first-internatio... [3] https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/copyright-and-ar...

Imagine if, to make a website, you had to fill out forms and submit them to the government for approval. Sorry, you can't have an unrestricted server connected to the internet, you can just make webpages using an approved website builder GUI using only those images that aren't filtered out by the host.

That is what the internet would be like if it were treated as the censors want to treat AI. No public training data sets. You can't run AI on your computer. You can't train your own models, or even finetune them. You can use the big censored models provided by the big companies that have the resources to get past regulatory approvals, or you can use the product of someone that has done this.

If the internet had been like this we'd be decades behind where we are today.

I think Meta released the first open model, LLAMA, because they were behind OpenAI's ChatGPT charm offensive and saw the strategic value in giving away what they had spent millions making in order to erode a competitor's leading position.

Again Deekseek gave away what they trained, and claimed it hadn't been that expensive to train anyway, in order to erode the competitor's leading position.

But with time and regulatory capture this dries up. At least within America.

There's a good chance that Deepseek basically surprised the CCP too. But they have catapulted themselves to big national and international prominence. So going forward their future releases will very much be sanctioned by the Chinese government. So we'll only see further model giveaways if it's seen as strategically beneficial to devalue the competitors in America.

(Thinking further ahead: at some point soon there might be a LLM model or augmented model that is so good at getting probabilities right that it can 'outthink' a human. At that point, whichever billionaire controls it has zero upside in sharing it with anyone. It's purpose is no longer to fuel a funding bubble as they can instead use it to outthink humans for their own personal gain. They won't think 'this can outthink humans, so we can offer better clip art pickers and other AI integrations for the masses who might pay for access to it'. They will think 'how do I use this super intelligence to outsmart the humans currently voting in democracies or humans guiding the markets?)

This is what the new online safety bill has you do though. It is ridiculous. And we can not even vote on it.