Privacy is half the value of PGP. The other half is about authentication: knowing who sent the email. It's arguably useful (within the hypothesis that Facebook is useful) to know that an email which claims to come from Facebook, actually came from Facebook.
But wait
LLMs have zero original creation capability. If an AI is generating _____ then it was trained on real _____.
If you have seen 18-year-old people fuck, and then you're introduced to the idea that 17-year-old people exist, then I don't think it requires much originality to visualize 17-year-old people fucking.
You don't think today's software could be used to generate a video where the Muppet Babies do a shot-for-shot remake of Behind the Green Door, despite it never being trained on exactly that? Surely it hasn't already seen "Die Hard at Barbenheim's Los Alamos beach mansion" (performed by the cast of Welcome Back, Kotter) but I bet it could render it.
Yankovic is as food-oriented as my dog! For all I know, an "okay" sandwich to him might be ten feet long and wrapped in gold foil.
It's a bit shocking that 1500 employees isn't 5000% of them.
Anyone know what these employees worked on?
It is impossible for Apple or anyone else "censor" their own work-for-hire. If you are thinking about personally saying something as yourself, and then you change your mind, you are not "censoring" yourself; you're just choosing a different thing to say.
When people use "censor" for things like this, they are just desensitizing others to the threat of actual censorship. Nobody had a gun pointed as De Nero's head, saying that he had to work for Apple and say whatever they wanted him to say. He voluntarily agreed to this work (whenever you see De Nero on a stage publicizing a movie, he is at work ), and I bet he was well paid for it.
Furthermore, I bet whenever De Nero's is off Apple's stage, he's allowed to talk about whatever it was that Apple's corporate mouth did not want to say. How dare you compare this to censorship!
It has always been this way. When I worked in the newspaper biz (2007-2020), the process I saw was that every writer's work was edited in some way. It was usually just for space (e.g. "we need to get these 200 words down to 100 words"; ah, the constraints of physical paper, where you can't just put up a scrollbar), but not always.
I am proficient in the following programming languages:
[end of list]
placate the plebiscite
If it really does, might that be a good thing? (Or at least no worse than the status quo?) You still get all the benefit of "I voted against $THOSE_ASSHOLES" which is how many FPTP voters vote anyway.
Stop making fun of my life!
Repeal DMCA. 1201 is what effectively mandated product-tying between content and its player.
"Keeping Tiktok on phones" sounds like someone spending money to induce phonemakers to have the Tiktok client preloaded on new phones. That would, indeed, be hideous and worthy of exposure and scathing criticism.
But instead, it's just about opposing a ban?! That's pretty damn different from "keeping" it.
he said should not be viewed as "a political topic — it's a topic for humanity."
It's not political, so you're presenting the hoax to a legislative body so that they can enact new policies to account for aliens. Got it, not political at all, except for 100% of it.
They're still doing serial instead of parallel so it's only about a tenth the speed it could be, and even then, it still doesn't work with my 1541 drives. Fail!
the Constitution doesn't really empower the federal government to legislate individual behavior
A1S8: "The Congress shall have Power
Since 1943, this power has been interpreted by every SCOTUS makeup (this isn't a "liberal" vs "conservative" thing) to include any imaginable human activity, unless they're explicitly blacklisted from legislating that topic (e.g. establishing religion or infringing the right to bear arms).
If a human can do x, then doing x almost certainly affects commerce. Did you just pick you nose with your finger? Then you just reduced the size of the market for automatic nose-picker machines, some of which might be manufactured in other states. If Congress wants to outlaw picking your nose with your finger, they have a constitutional basis for that.
If you disagree (and maybe you should!) then you have to accept that you are disagreeing with a consistent, unified SCOTUS, and not just today, but in your parents' and grandparents' time too. And that means you are guaranteed to lose any legal dispute (though not necessarily every philosophical dispute) over the matter, whether your (rather common sense, IMHO) analysis is faithful to the original intent or not.
I don't think this can be changed, except by a new constitutional amendment which re-asserts the 10th amendment by explicitly contradicting the current (1943-2023) [mis?]interpretation. Until then (i.e. forever), we're going to have lots of laws concerning individual behavior, and there will always be calls to have someone enforce those laws.
The paranoid / hyper-secure types that live in fear
That's a funny market to try to compete in, for hardware which is dependent on a proprietary cloud-based service. What's the very first thing which comes to mind when you hear "Ring?" That someone-who-isn't-the-owner is the entity ultimately in charge of who is allowed to access it.
I guess the way to spin it is: if you buy a Ring, then you don't have to worry about the government constantly interrupting you with requests to see footage. Someone else will handle all those tedious requests for you, without ever bothering you with such distractions.
Ring is for people who have no paranoia at all. The more paranoid you are, the worse Ring sounds.
I have to turn it down because it's too loud. I have to turn on subtitles because it's too quiet.
The rate at which a disease spreads through a corn field is a precise measurement of the speed of blight.
