There's always a market for a simple, mindless bit of entertainment. The equivalent of a fidget toy for neurotypicals.

Oh, that's all, is it.

Yep, you're right 1 hour max /s.

Browsers are the most insecure attack surface of any aspect of modern computers. Apple's s/w is built using standard engineering decision-making - can we rely on X being there ? Why yes we can, so we can delegate this function to that system framework which we've tested is all secure.

Except that all breaks down when someone installs a 3rd party browser. Now the security model of the system depends on the security model of the installed browser, and that's just not acceptable. It may be the user's fault that they installed but you can guarantee that Apple will be holding the can at the end of any argument over why their nudes are now all over the internet.

I'd be sceptical that you could boot and run DSL off a floppy disk drive given that they only go up to about two and a bit megabytes.

Odd, that TP-Link router should take DD-WRT just fine. I haven't found a NetGear router that won't take DD-WRT either. It's another story once you get into commercial-grade routers, but generally you aren't buying them for home use anyway.

I did exactly that for a long time until decent ready-built hardware came out that'd take DD-WRT or equivalent with no fuss. The main requirement is a motherboard with 2 Ethernet ports and Wi-Fi built in, or one with enough slots to bring it up to 3 Ethernet ports: 1 for the WAN connection, 1 for wired LAN, 1 to plug an access point into. Any mITX or mSTX board should do. Small cases are easy to find, lots of them for media center PCs are perfect. The annoying part is that most of them aren't designed to do their initial installation remotely, but onboard video makes it easy enough to plug them into a second port on one of your monitors, plus a USB keyboard and mouse, for long enough to get them up and running.

Frankly though, these days I'd just get a suitable home router with Wi-Fi and flash it with DD-WRT or OpenWRT or the like. Cheaper, smaller, and the install's a lot easier because the firmware's already there to flash a new image so you don't have the headache of getting enough onto it to do the rest remotely.

> "illicit streaming sites such as myflixer and projectfreetv..."

Got it, thanks!

That's not good enough. They all need to fly on their own planes every day.

There's a difference between passing a pilot as fit to fly and passing a new aeroplane as fit to fly. In the former case, the only thing that rides on it is one person's career and you could argue that it is in the airline's best interests that its pilots know how to fly its planes. In the latter case, the financial wellbeing of an entire huge company might be at stake. There is no way a plane should be certified by employees of the company that makes it.

The AI part *doesn't matter* because using AI doesn't automagically make something plagiarism.

This isn't a shame at all.

Plagiarism is plagiarism, regardless of whether there's AI involved, and this drives that point home. The tools you use don't have anything to do with it. You *can* plagiarize with AI, but just because it trained on something doesn't mean that everything the AI creates is plagiarizing that thing.

Thinking that everything AI does is plagiarism tracks extremely well with very fundamental misunderstandings about how it actually works.

I think it'll boil down to a question of the definition of "published" for purposes of the law. The basic question would be: "If someone writes a letter to me asking for information, and I reply with a letter containing a statement that qualifies as defamatory about person X, does my letter constitute "publishing" that statement such that person X could sue me for defamation?". I suspect the answer's going to be "Yes.".

Some may argue that the person asking ChatGPT the question is just using a tool. Well, how is that different from them asking me the question? In both cases the source of the statement isn't the person asking the question. It might be a valid distinction if the person asking the question operated the LLM themselves and was responsible for supplying it it's training data, but that's not the case here.

Not surprising, since all those "wellness" programs are aimed at managing the symptoms rather than doing anything about the problems that are at the root of it.

What's to stop the deepfake people from just using the same process to add the FACStamp to their content? I can think of multiple ways off-hand to do that. Then their deepfakes will register as authenticated content and nobody can tell the difference.

Second problem is the requirement for connectivity to a central database. What do you do when you don't have connectivity for whatever reason? Or when the central database is down? Or when one of the deepfake people has hacked into the central database and wiped or contaminated it?

Now, there is a way to do this successfully, but you have to start by asking "How do we verify the source of a message without depending on a central authority to tell us the result?". The initials "HKP" might help you along, the principles apply to X.509 equally.

...is call all of these people "pathetic" and "gross" and tell them to "get a girlfriend". That should increase their self-confidence and help them interact with real people.

This has to be for companies that contract their software development out. Employee salaries are deductible for companies, so if the costs were for software developers employed by the company they'd be deducted from revenue before taxes were calculated and the scenario given would result in 0 tax liability.