crumpled

Most users aren't even going to know that this is here. Web developers will expose this capability to the user. The devs will have to determine if the model is delivering what they need.

It's good to have something to work with if these Web APIs are going to be part of a standard. I suppose this means that ALL the browser vendors are likely to implement something

So now we're up to 6 GB

Probably because the articles are talking about how the AI will be used in immoral ways, and that the people who know that and continue doing the work must be morally compromised.

I know that there might be $several ways those highly-paid engineers might still rationalize their work. Some of them might have ideological reasons to treat entire classes of people as unworthy of life. Within the model of their ideologies, the most evil things might be perfectly moral.

I wonder what reasons you have to disagree with people's moral stance against using AI as a weapon.

I haven't seen this discussed here yet. Wikipedia has decided to deprecate archive.today links because the site has been observed using the browsers of visitors to conduct a DDOS attack on the blog of an individual. Perhaps more troubling, archive.today modified archived versions of articles to insert the individuals name into the context of the articles.

I'm a bit out of my depth in this comment section (not an arch user, am a novice docker admin). But, to me, this comment is eye-opening.

Does anyone know the status of this whole release. The metadata was hosted, and now not hosted. I saw a torrent leaked of unpopular tracks.

No statements or blogs from AA explaining the metadata removal, or an updated release timeline.

Can anyone say more?

"...the company whose entire brand is AI safety"

Absolutely no AI company is trying to take up this banner. Examples of Claude being used in all kinds of nefarious ways are surfacing all the time, and all those human operators are still current customers. Anthropic has very little to say on the matter.

The idea that Anthropic is a "safety" brand suggests that AI companies operate in a much lower realm of morality.

The aurora store will identify whether apps require google play services before you try to install them.

If you use Aurora Store instead of the Play store, you can download APKs. They are a Google Play store proxy.

I was concerned about that too. Often when you tell them not to do something, you were better off not mentioning it in the first place. It's like they get fixated.

et.aliens.gov, mexicans.aliens.gov

It can do it all!

While the school is paying Thompson Reuters CLEAR for information about where their students supposedly live, CLEAR isn't limiting their data collection to just student families.

They are collecting information about everyone en masse and making up different problems they are "solving". Everyone in the US should realize that this is a story about themselves, not just some family in Chicago.

I agree with your point, and am only responding to the last sentence.

Starring can be useful to the starer. They are just counted because it is countable. Whether you find the number meaningful remains up to you.

The software seems to get into more and more and communicate about what it's doing less and less. That's the crux.

Pondering... Noodling... Some other nonsense...

Is Github an application store? Is npm? apt? yum?

If not, why not? You need age verification before you even create an account.

My partner has a 4a and no such issues. Are you talking about stock Android or something else,

Arguably, you get more and better domain experts in Wikipedia. I have a set of Britannicas, it's severely lacking in citations and definitely out of date, no matter how new.

The question of article quality has been studied from the very beginning. Wikipedia almost always wins.

I recognize that screenshot. The office managers just wanted smilies in their Outlook email.

I'm not the commentor, but you could get different results from the same curl command depending on what the server wants to give you at the time. The bash script can make additional curl calls or set up jobs that occur at other times.

I'm sure both of you understand this. I'm guessing it's just semantics.

Wikipedia is Creative Commons. Someone could conceivably publish a dead tree version that goes through an editor / editorial process.

Imagine being an editor of Britannica. Without having domain knowledge into absolutely everything, you are forced to trust domain experts.

Wikipedia has a marked advantage when it comes to building that trust, as the articles have been written under public scrutiny and with a great deal of discussion.

What else are you looking for with "traditional editorial structures"? Consistency in quality and completeness, which Wikipedia lacks. However, whenever an article has lower standards, Wikipedia is happy to point that out to the reader, and allow further refinement. A more traditional encyclopedia would simply omit the article entirely.

I'm not really seeing what a traditional editorial structure would be gaining anyone, seems like it would just be a smaller encyclopedia.

What's the point of these questions? Seems like, "what's the point of dissent if the cards are stacked against you?"

I would change that classification from "mere proposal" to "credible threat".

I'm honestly disappointed to see this flagged. What's the saying, "Even an SEO farm is right twice a day"?

What's happening on the media landscape is an enormous problem, highly manipulated and coordinated on the right-wing side. Flooding the zone is happening, among other things that weaken trust in journalism, weaken/defund/discourage investigative reporting, burying the lede information etc.

However, using the goon squad to illegally intimidate and disenfranchise voters is a problem large enough that calling it a would-be distraction from the Epstein files is doing everyone a disservice.

We have to pay attention to more than one thing. Saying <blank> is just a distraction from <blank-2>, means that you're too distracted by <blank-2> and need to step back and look around at all the other horrors.

It's not deflection. They're just doing multiple evil things at the same time.

The Project 2025 crew is so obvious about what they are doing, and the counter-measures seem to be along the lines of, "well, let's see how it goes."

I did as well. I found a bug right away. If I use "units" the resulting calculations are reversed.

You have: 1 mile You want: kilometers * 1.609344 / 0.62137119

You have: 1 unit You want: 1.609344 units * 0.62137119 / 1.609344

TigerDirect? Wow. How did I forget the first place I used and instantly maxxed a credit card? I would look through that catalog right now if I had it.

The Wikipedia page for Anna's archive was a lot more helpful leading people to the goods than the .org domain was.

Anna always knew the .org domain was vulnerable. Why wouldn't they?

Maybe I just will...

The image would have to be topical, and the sexual nature would have to be necessary (not-gratuitous) for it to be compliant with that CoC.

I'd be surprised if such an image can exist in an electronics forum because those parameters are pretty narrow. I also don't interpret policy as disallowing any form of joke.

I'm not about to go hunting, but I think I would find a good number of good non-offensive jokes, and probably no instances of sexual imagery.