What? You're not going to advocate for it??? I thought you were invoking some kind of principle or something.

You're down with Russia killing far more Ukrainians, whom they claim are their own people?

You're down with what China's doing to the Uyghurs, whom they claim are their own people?

And while we're on the topic, how many Iranians should we be willing to kill to save them from their leaders? Nuclear extermination would surely do it... do you advocate that?

But maybe it won't take that much. Regime change in Afghanistan only cost 2000 American lives, 175,000 Afghan lives, and 2,000,000,000,000 dollars, but we sure got rid of those sorry... What? They're back in power?

Only the simplest minds think intervention automagically yields the intended result. In fact the current sorry situation in Iran is a direct result of us trying to "fix" things more to our liking in the middle of last century.

So... Should we attack every country that slaughters its own people?

No, they want to "correct" it to harbor only mainstream hallucinations.

No, they're arguing there's ways to use their software to commit an illegal act, which is true of literally anything.

I can't imagine anyone making the argument that using AI tools to rewrite code in another language removes the copyright.

Not exactly, because the amount of stearates that came off the gloves would be fairly random, so there's no way to apply a general correction. You might not even know what kind of gloves they used in the experiment!

That doesn't mean you throw out the results, but you maybe mark those results and say there was potential factor unaccounted for and the results needs to be replicated.

The gold-standard tasteful way to handle stuff like this is cast a friend of the original actor. An example is Jon Lovitz replacing Phil Hartman on Newsradio.

I agree they could possibly get away with AI since it's being driven by his cast mates, but I don't think they'd try it.

It's an interesting journalistic debate. On the one hand their job is to report, not to help people stay anonymous.

But Banksy is part performance art, and his anonymity is part of that, by revealing his identity you arguably destroy the art work.

I feel like this expose kinda gets forgotten because Banksy was never completely anonymous, the reason he's not really known is that people recognize the anonymity is part of it and they don't want to know who he is.

Or chloromidians? Was there any mention of chlorine on it?

In the absence of chlorine, would flouromidians form? Would flouromidian-based life have any unusual properties?

Or whatever it is that tricorders detect?

Or souls? Did it make a detour through our solar system to pick up a few souls for later use?

Never would have believed it was a fake.

Not in the slightest.

It just shows we have some levers to reduce consumption that we don't normally use.

It doesn't show that we can reasonably use those levers long term, not that those levers are actually sufficient to reduce fuel consumption enough to make up the difference.

Ads? Never saw that many, now I only see ONE on the page at all.

Guess you haven't heard of Brave and are still being tracked all over the internet,then.

Maybe they're looking for the heat signature of crypto mining.

People are already being entertained buy the unending revelations from the Epstein files.

And shocked, though not particularly awed.

Interestingly, in one of the Gnostic Gospels, Jesus is quoted as saying when he departed that he had to go visit "sheep of other folds, that you know not of".

(paraphrasing from memory)