People produce plenty of slop without AI. Example: on X every post that asks a provocative question, e.g., "All blondes are dumb, do you agree?" No useful information, pure karma farming.

I don't understand why the site don't filter such crap out. Surely their users would be at least as engaged by real content?

Encryption was not the issue here. Access to email was.

And because some über-nerd is going to suggest it: running your own email server is not any sort of realistic option.

Just to be clear: this is an area affected by severe subsidence.

All these climate engineering ideas are insane. The truth is that the current models don't work very well. Climate is hugely complex, and there are a lot of natural phenomena that are poorly understood. Trying to *deliberately* make global changes (as opposed to trying not to, for example, by not burning coal) is just bonkers.

Much like the greenwashing projects - there's good money to be had, if you can scam someone out of it. Consequences be damned...

Congress is busy distracting people from their incompetence?

A lot of comments are just unrelentingly hostile to the idea of humanoid robots. Sure, industrial robots don't need to be humanoid. Welding together the frame of a car? Packing boxes onto pallets? Special purpose robots rule.

However, there are other use cases. First, any robot that needs to interact in flexible ways in the human world. Open doors? Move around in a room full of furniture? Grasp objects designed for human hands? Look at displays placed at human head-height? Obviously, a humanoid form will be most practical.

Second, robots that are designed to interact with humans in sympathetic ways. To take one of the most obvious use-cases: caring for the elderly. That is a hugely difficult and draining task: it is difficult to find enough people to do it, and do it well. Perhaps robots can take on some of the load, but: in order to be accepted by the patients, they will need to come across as friendly and helpful. That means humanoid.

It's really fricking said that people cannot tolerate differing opinions. Sure, I have my views, but I have friends with very different opinions. We are unlikely to convince each other, but we can respect each other's views.

Most of the rain in a rain forest comes from transpiration from the rain forest itself. This is well known.

Brazil is destroying itself, because it is unwilling to get serious about illegal logging, agriculture and mining

n/t

"systems optimizing for specific spots without variation"

Pretty obviously exactly this. equidistant from A, B, and C or something like that. All they need to do is add in a small random factor to whatever algorithm they are using.

Like hippie communes in the 1960s, New Age retreats in the 80s and everything since: Naive, idealistic people want to re-invent society. It works, right up until they discover that people are people.

I mean, sure, it makes sense that a creator holds the rights to their creation - for a brief time. However, copyright law has been extended beyond all reason. Add in things like the DMCA, where filing false claims never leads to any sort of penalty, and...yeah. Reset the whole system: eliminate copyright and start over.

Enforced...how? Individual users download Software and install it. Individual users subscribe to servers run by other individuals.

Conspiracy theory, but isn't it strange how so many Western governments are suddenly simultaneously pushing for the identification of internet users? Dystopian.

More climate-panic clickbait. Shutdown after 2100? Predictions far enough in the future that they cannot be falsified.

Serious question: do people really want to talk to their AI? Unless you live and work alone, I just don't see it. Plus, the overly-bubbly California valley-girl voices are just grating.