Still would have been good for the Substack author to link to the tweet rather than just embedding a nearly-too-small-to-be-readable png of a JPEG and six links to the tweet author's X profile.
It is interesting to see this comment section be both more upset about a perceived threat to bioessentialist stereotypes and specifically more sexist in assumption than the reddit thread I saw the story in.
On the other hand, I've been trying to submit changes to Google for several new and vacated roads for over a year (having already updated OSM) and they are constantly rejected. I suspect it is much more that their updates are responsive to car traffic. The segments I'm submitting are or were low-traffic although they include a road that a local municipality has directed people to in official communication for overflow yard waste after some big, recent storms.
Nerf used this way is more in analogy to the toy guns (Nerf as a trade name, they launch foam projectiles, there even exist hobbyists who will upgrade them to be more energetic/destructive), it means to make the system ineffectual in some way that blunts a powerful feature, often with the stated goal of protecting the user.
I don't think anyone in these comments looked further than the top line Political Compass chart. If they had they might have some gigantic questions about how that chart was made, since the more granulated "survey" data lower down looks not just much different but more interesting.
That assumes the point of invading Cuba is to do liberal market reforms. If the goal is either to expropriate resources or just throw chum to the Florida voters in an election year then it's still on the table.
My banks app complains will block me and tell me to disable developer mode, but if I turn it right back on after launching the app it won't complain for maybe another week. The post that really annoys me, though, is that if you don't set up biometric unlock they will not allow you to use the extended login cookie, so you need to put in your password every time, most don't work with password managers either (whether intentionally or not).
Only tangentially related, there was a "500-year" flood in my region a couple of years ago and a manager in my department who would shortly become the company president had his house flood. I volunteered to help with cleanup and ended up at his house tearing his basement, at one point 8' under water, down to the studs. His near-adult kids had small Lego collections that were basically in untouched condition except they had been under water. He told us to throw them out with everything else - it was not worth the complicated effort to do them and sort them out. But out of all the stuff it took us the most convincing to do so, the bricks weren't damaged at all.
That said, I'm surprised Lego survive outdoors. My understanding is that ABS is not UV-resistant.
There is no more succinct way to describe a Zionist than by using the word Zionist. To assume anyone who says "Zionist" means "Jew" is to make an unnecessary leap in bad faith.
* They had sold about half of the consigned inventory
* The old franchise owner said they had a job offer outside the country
* Said franchise owner was current on a restructured fee schedule that, they allege, was the direct result of corporate bungling the transfer of accounts from the franchise owner previous to them
I believe in this case the consignment contract requires the store to hold insurance on the consigned merchandise, which I assume is intended to address this concern.
Yeah, that extremely purple paragraph about how the blog was documenting that liminal period where humans worked together with AI as partners was embarrassing.
The same wiki article says there is a limit to the capacity of synthesis by UVB due to the quantity of reagent 7-dehydrocholesterol produced in the skin, but I don't know the math on what amount of exposure would be required to hit that limit - presumably it (or something like it) is covered in the article above.
I believe in A, I don't take a strong position on B, I am in coalition with people who believe in B and don't take a strong position on A, we both believe in C, D, E, and F, which some other people believe in with differing weights. Browbeating me about position B (or, the most useless kind of Internet banter, complaining about me and my hypocritical position on A+B to your friends who oppose both in a likewise contradictory way, in some venue I've never heard of) is not about making people reevaluate positions, it's about negative factionalism. The only reason it might not fit the familiar categorization of "fallacy" is that you would never use it in rational debate, either in arguing with another person or in reasoning out your own position.
Perhaps I can interest you in the Firefox Mobile option: put a blue pip on the three dot menu and the "What's New" item that will never go away until you click on it.
What you are describing is a legislation of the attitude of the average careless driver in the United States. I should be able to drive however I want until or unless I kill someone, the car should be the thing that keeps me from killing people, and anyone who doesn't use the roadway like me should be responsible for preventing me from killing them.
It's more complicated than that. KFX was not encrypted differently than AZW, it's just a proprietary format that no one else supports (AZW being more or less MOBI with some tweaks). The DRM and the format get conflated because the same enthusiasts who want to strip DRM tend to want ebooks in an archivable, portable, standard format that was not achievable with KFX (no other ebook readers care to implement the kind of features it supports, and the way it works is antithetical to coverting it to the more conventional formats). You could still download and strip DRM in versions of Kindle for PC that pulled the KFX format. Only recently did it get to the point that versions of the app supported by the DeDRM plugins weren't allowed to download new books.
I'm particularly fond of the senders who know there are nominally laws about spam, so they just label every piece of marketing and customer retention garbage as pertaining to your user account, or they layer some subscription-related language over a promotion al email. I uploaded photos to a printing service over a decade ago and long since unsubscribed from their marketing lists. Two months ago they started sending me bi-weekly "reminders" that my old photos would be purged soon but offering me a discount subscription to their cloud storage. They then sent me at least three weekly reminders. The thing is, none of the links in the email would send me to the page to download old information (which it turns out I had already done years ago, presumably on prompt of some other spam) or information on deleting that content myself.
The other classic of the genre is mailing list software that stores opt-out preferences separate of customer account data such that when they move to a different marketing service or their retention policy tolls out you start getting spam again, exactly 5 years after you opted out.
The whole point of contention is that one of the spaces is, effectively, the only convenient places to have a quick, heretofore private, conversation. No one is confused over where the things are.
My local county is currently in a dispute with the local bar association because they want to upgrade the courthouse security cameras and the sheriff wants to add audio capabilities. This includes to parts of the building just outside the courtroom that counsel will frequently use for brief asides with their clients (due to lack of other private rooms). The county seems to favor adding the microphones and pinky swearing they won't use them and that public records requests won't be used to listen in on privileged communication, but it's obvious how difficult that would be to trust. They keep putting off a decision because they don't want to piss off the lawyers.
The premise of the quote does not contain the assumption that there is no copyright to the code. In fact the various contributors do not advance an opinion about whether code written by an AI can be granted copyright. Rather they are saying that it is obviously derivative of code that is under copyright, that is only distributed under terms which, however many dry cleaners process it, will still conflict with the license under which they publish their software.
Did anyone seriously believe this was the AI's fault? The modern military use of LLMs is very clearly for the purpose of creating vaguely plausible targets while distancing any person from the decision to murder people. Surely if we cared at all about accomplishing a strategic goal we would have had a set of well documented targets ready to go. Instead the goal seems to be to drop as many bombs as possible, hope the computer's good enough that they mostly hit people who have relevance to things we don't like, and loudly proclaim that it's more important to kill people than it is to have any goal at all.
This all relies, as the article points out, on everyone looking directly at code that both looks like and works like the only extant codebase for EXT4 and nonetheless concluding that in fact the computer conjured it from the aether. If I wrote a program that zipped up the Linux kernel source, unzipped it, and grepped -v for comments it would not then be magically transformed into unattributable public domain software.