Stating that Israel doesn’t have a right to exist has been recognized to be an antisemitic statement by many prominent institutions.
It’s a radical statement that effectively denies the rights of millions of people to exist and is especially problematic given the historical context of the establishment of Israel.
The statement gets thrown around so much in certain circles that it’s gotten normalized. You’ve apparently lost sight of or never stopped to think what actually means, to the point where you’re providing it as an example of an innocent statement that got you banned for no reason. Taking this statement out of radical activist circles and into the real world won’t go well.
Take some time to educate yourself and reflect on what it actually means.
But states don't have a right to exist. It's not a right a state can have.
The context of the establishment of Israel is also the mass expulsion of Palestinians, terrorism, the murder of British soldiers trying to keep peace, biological warfare with the poisoning of wells with typhus, etc.
What does that mean, 'a right to exist'? It sounds like emotional nonsense speak - we have the powerful words right and exist, and together they sound existential, for a person.
In international law afaict existing states have a right to exist - yes, almost circular. It's not endorsement of them as good or ok; it's recognizing reality and it's considered absolutely essential to maintain peace - otherwise everyone could attack almost anyone else, because if you're going to start deligitimizing states based on their bad actions, including in their formation, there's going to be a long list.
But beyond that, I don't even know what it means for state. Beyond any doubt, the humans in Israel and the occupied territories all have a right to exist.
After the fall of the Nazi regime, two new German governments were installed, and then unification happened. Yugoslavia broke up. The Soviet Union broke up. States alter, abolish, and replace themselves all the time.
Maybe the dissolution I'm hoping for will actually take the form of Israel codifying a constitution finally that grants equal rights to Arab Palestinians and Jewish Israelis.
>Beyond any doubt, the humans in Israel and the occupied territories all have a right to exist.
> After the fall of the Nazi regime, two new German governments were installed, and then unification happened. Yugoslavia broke up. The Soviet Union broke up. States alter, abolish, and replace themselves all the time.
All the time? You had to go back to the 1940s and 1990s to find examples. Per Wikipedia, though I wouldn't trust it completely, there have been only three new countries since 1994 - South Sudan, Kosovo, Montenegro:
I just tried the demo on the homepage and I don’t know what kind of sorcery this is but it’s blowing my mind.
I input a bunch of completely made up words (Quastral Syncing, Zarnix Meshing, HIBAX, Bilxer) and used them in a sentence and the model zero-shotted perfect speech recognition!
It’s so counterintuitive for me that this would work. I would have bet that you have to provide at least one audio sample in order for the model to recognize a word it was never trained on.
Providing it to the model in text modality and it being able to recognize it in the audio modality must be an emergent property.
I think the same can be said about AI-assisted writing…
I like the ideas presented in the post but it’s too long and highly repetitive.
AI will happily expand a few information dense bullet points into a lengthy essay. But the real work of a strong writer is distilling complex ideas into few words.
I think these tests are useful as regression tests - unit tests can be really helpful when making changes down the line, tipping you off that you missed something. Also much easier to refactor when there’s good test coverage.
From the PR:
unit tests: what are they good for?
Answer:
Personal opinion - writing unit testing is not fun. It becomes even less appealing as your codebase grows and maintaining tests becomes a time-consuming chore.
However, the benefits of comprehensive unit tests are real:
Reliability: They create a more reliable codebase where developers can make changes confidently
Speed: Teams can move quickly without fear of breaking existing functionality
Safe Refactoring: Code improvements and restructuring become significantly safer when backed by thorough tests
Living Documentation: Tests serve as clear documentation of your code's behavior:
They show exactly what happens for each input
They present changes in a human-readable format: "for this input → expect this output"
They run quickly and are easy to execute
This immediate feedback loop is beneficial during development
> I think these tests are useful as regression tests - unit tests can be really helpful when making changes down the line, tipping you off that you missed something. Also much easier to refactor when there’s good test coverage.
The problem is that this assumes that the tests or the method was written correctly in the first place. If the behavior in the method is wrong and the tests are validating that the behavior is wrong, then you pay an extra tax. First to fix the behavior of the method, then to fix the behavior of the tests.
That's why automatically generating unit tests is in my opinion adding a bomb to your codebase. The only exception is stuff like basic parameter testing but even that can be questionable at times (is null a valid input at any point for example) unless you know the intent of the code, and AI can't really grasp at the intent.
I tried generating the same test with all 5 models in Qodo Gen.
o1 is very slow - like, you can go get a coffee while it generates a single test (if it doesn’t time out in middle).
o1-mini thought worked really well. It generated a good test and wasn’t noticeably slower than the other models.
My feeling is that o1-mini will end up being more useful for coding than o1, except for maybe some specific instances where you need very deep analysis
How well did it work for generating tests? I was looking for an AI test generation tool yesterday and I came across this and it wasn't clear how good it is.
(before I get a bunch of comments about not letting AI write tests, this is for a hobby side project that I have a few hours a week to work on. I'm looking into AI test generation because the alternative is no tests)
From my understanding faster-whisper optimizes the inference without changing the model itself. Here they seem to be changing the model architecture but not applying other optimizations.
50% on its own doesn’t make this the current best choice for production. But I imagine this could become the new base model that all of the inference optimizations are applied to.
Wonder if it’s plug and play or if faster-whisper and others would need to reimplement from scratch?
It’s a radical statement that effectively denies the rights of millions of people to exist and is especially problematic given the historical context of the establishment of Israel.
The statement gets thrown around so much in certain circles that it’s gotten normalized. You’ve apparently lost sight of or never stopped to think what actually means, to the point where you’re providing it as an example of an innocent statement that got you banned for no reason. Taking this statement out of radical activist circles and into the real world won’t go well.
Take some time to educate yourself and reflect on what it actually means.