"Soon, Mariona joined her new friends on "raids": a few of them would block off a street, throw Molotov cocktails, hand out leaflets, and when the police turned up, scatter in every direction."
okay she threw molotov cocktails, she was lucky she wasn't imprisoned.
I find this a profoundly odd response to the story. Is your intent to excuse her abusive treatment by the religious, medical, and government authorities of a totalitarian regime?
Your comment is treating her with full agency (i.e. "she shouldn't have done anything bad or disruptive") and completely ignoring the agency of the institutions that harmed her (i.e. "what did she expect in response?").
A) She was still a child.
B) She was imprisoned, repeatedly, and tortured, as the article discusses.
C) Is it your opinion that everyone was "lucky" to live in 1968 Spain under Franco. Or just her?
Please don't call a 17-year old person a child. It's not as if on the night between 17 years, 11 months and 30 days, and 18 years humans undergo some sort of metamorphosis.
Yes I agree, which is probably why we should treat 18-year olds more as children than adults (although obviously they are in-between the two). Brains continue to develop to the age of about 25.
Brains continue to develop through our whole lives.
The study that appeared to show them stopping development at 25 did not have any participants older than 25.
The difference between an 18-year-old and a 24-year-old is much more comparable to the difference between a 24-year-old and a 30-year-old.
We should be treating teenagers much more as adults-in-training, in the sense of meaningfully giving them the tools to succeed as adults, rather than treating them like pure innocent children who must be sheltered from absolutely everything hard, scary, or taboo.
However, as it stands we generally do not do that—hence, in this case, she was indeed a child, and should have been given compassion, better tools, and better chances, not locked up.
The brain does not fully develop until 25, 18 is simply one of many thresholds where we've decided (in the US) to start officially transitioning children into adulthood. Others include 14-16 (driving), 21 (drinking), and 25 (car rental).
So if 17 can't be called a child, what can? You have to draw the completely arbitrary like somewhere. Do you chose the legal 18 (in the US)? The Hebrew 13? Some other metric?
| Nobody wanted her tortured except the criminals torturing her.
Oh, word? It's dope you know the inner thoughts of everyone involved.
| Throwing Molotov cocktail is trivially an criminal offense.
Article didn't say she threw them herself, 'a few' of a group she was part of did.
Glad you're taking the maximalist, guilty until proven innocent, position on conviction by association in the Franco Regime.
I don’t think she’s guilty of anything. If I had a daughter that was engaging in violent political uprisings as a young teen, I’d try my best to get her help. That’s presumably why her parents sent her to a reform program.
My point is the story is disjointed and sad, but there is little cohesive theme aside from pure tragedy, and the narrative presented makes no sense.
You: "help", "That’s >- presumably <- why her parents sent her to a reform program."
The article:
| [her parents] were so conservative they wouldn't even let Mariona wear trousers.
| "For them, it was a scandal, a stain on the family," she says. "After that, they wouldn't let me out."
| [after she ran away] They immediately reported her as an underage runaway to the authorities, and the moment Mariona was about to board a boat back to Barcelona, she was arrested.
| Mariona wasn't given any explanation [for sending her away] - she only remembers her parents' rage.
| her [second] escape was short lived. Within hours she was bundled into a car with her father and an uncle, and driven back to Madrid.
| Now aged 20, she vowed to never live with her parents again.
| "We suffered a lot too," [her father] told her when she asked him about the family decision to have her locked up in Madrid.
Her parents only care about themselves, 50 years ago and today, if you can't see that, there's something wrong with you.
~~
You: "My point is the story is disjointed and sad, but there is little cohesive theme"
The purpose of the article and the film, as written in the article, which you did not read:
| Reformatories were institutions where girls and young women who refused to conform to the Franco regime's Catholic values were detained - single mothers, girls with boyfriends, lesbians. Girls who'd been sexually assaulted were incarcerated, assuming the blame for their own abuse. Orphans and abandoned girls might also find themselves living behind convent walls.
| The film has contributed to a groundswell of calls for the interned women to be formally recognised under the law as victims of Spain's dictatorship.
| "Women come and tell their stories – it's like a door opened to something unknown, and that's very powerful," says Marina. "People think what happened in their own home was an isolated incident. We try to say: this history isn't individual, it was systematic."
| Her mother Mariona still doubts her memory sometimes.
| But, she says, "seeing it all reflected in the film, that gives it the weight of truth."
When asked why they captured and locked up their daughter, twice, they replied "We suffered a lot too". They expressed only rage at their loss of status when confronting her initially.
Based on disclosed facts, actions taken (that are not in dispute), and statements by the perpetrators themselves before and after the fact, we can conclude that her parents do in fact care more about their own 'suffering' and 'status', more than their daughter's physical and emotional well-being.
You, on the other hand, just made shit up from whole cloth, but are too pathetic to stand on business and disagree directly.
If I could assign remedial reading comprehension lessons to anyone on Earth, today, I would choose you.
> Throwing Molotov cocktail is trivially an criminal offense.
This is a protest against a fascist regime we're talking about. I don't know the exact context of any of this because I'm not Spanish, don't speak the language, and don't really know all that much about the nuance of 1968 Spain. I'm fairly sure you're just as ignorant of this as I am but the difference is that I'm withholding strong judgement one way or the other instead of jumping on one detail.
I do know that throwing a bunch of tea you don't own in the sea is also trivially a criminal offence. Kicking the shit out of an SS-officer is also trivially a criminal offence. etc. etc. You can have a long discussion about when violence is or isn't justified. I don't know enough about this specific situation to have a strong opinion. But pretty much everyone agrees that at some point you need to look beyond the law and trying to reduce this to just a matter of the law is massively naïve at best.
I'm utterly shocked at the article saying GPU inference (PyTorch/Transformers)isn't working. Numerical instability produces bad outputs,
Not viable for real-time serving, Wait for driver/CUDA updates!
My job just got me and our entire team a DGX spark.
I'm impressed at the ease of use for ollama models I couldn't run on my laptop.
gpt-oss:120b is shockingly better than what I thought it would be from running the 20b model on my laptop.
The DGX has changed my mind about the future being small specialized models.
Totally agree. I’ve been training nanochat models all morning. Hit some speed bumps. I’ll share more later in another article. Buts it’s absolutely amazing. I fine tuned a Gemma3 model in a day yesterday.
I like the ORM but Django has stagnated in so so many ways.
Most of my startup friends basically use Ruby on Rails for their startup webap, and python microservices these days.
If you know python (hate ruby) and like javascript well enough FastAPI and javascript frontends seems way better.
> Salesforce forecast third-quarter revenue below Wall Street estimates on Wednesday, signaling lagging monetization for its highly-touted artificial intelligence agent platform as clients dial back spending due to macroeconomic uncertainty.
> The cloud software provider also announced a $20 billion increase to its existing share buyback program, but that was unable to allay investors' concerns, sending Salesforce's shares down over 5% in extended trading.
Salesforce revenue growth has decelerated from ~24% in FY 2021 to just over 8% for the trailing 12 months.
A company that was tuned to double revenue in 3 years transforming in one expecting to double in 9 years is definitely carrying too many people. It made sense for them to reduce headcount to align with their much slower growth curve.
Side note: Benioff also said earlier this year that they were done hiring programmers because AI. I'll let their careers page put the lie to that.
Companies can choose to reduce costs by firing people, or to improve outcomes using both humans and AI. When they fire people they are saying they have no idea what to do with them. But people have AI too, we are no worse than AI.
4k jobs across the economy is far less than random variation in the stats.
Salesforce reduced their headcount in 2023 by 8-10%. Another reduction by 5% attributed solely to AI could be a half truth and the reality could simply be Salesforce driving an efficiency agenda.
Personally, I believe it will take a few more years for systems to be built. Once those systems are in place, then headcount reductions are going to come fast and wide. Or putting it simply think of it as exponential growth. Currently AI job displacements are small, but it's growing, and will continue accelerating in its growth.
Salesforce just gave weak guidance. "Company that doesn't expect to do so well lays people off" is a pretty standard story, and one might be forgiven for thinking that "Company that expects magic robots to do everything lays people off" is, in this case, more marketing than anything else.
I wouldn't necessarily pay that much attention to what the CEO _says_.
