Perhaps he doesn't, but then again you don't know how it behaves, which is worse. FaceID definitely gets skeeved when I've retained water and will frequently fail the check enough where I'm forced to enter in the password despite getting what should be a recent enough scan of my face from well lit indoor lighting. It's security feature to require attention has never worked correctly for me and will unlock if the camera is simply pointed at my direction when my eyes are even somewhat open which makes me worry it could unlock in situations I don't want it to such as if I'm merely standing on my front porch engaging with people who I wouldn't want to gain access inside. I don't like face id I think it's a bad technology for consumers and has worse implications elsewhere. If we're going to take an invasive technology for the sake of convenience I wish they would revert back to the fingerprint unlock performed far superior for me, especially like on my last non-apple phone which had a rear mounted fingerprint scanner that would be natural to engage when the phone is grasped. It was far faster, reliable, and in my case more secure.

Anyone fooled by this the video that inspired this law should not be voting from an ethics standpoint. The law they're discussing is not a deepfake law. AB 730 leaves enough leeway for candidates to shut down any legitimate criticism of their campaign. It is bad legislature

It's useful if you're wanting to try to play investment games with crypto. Depending on the exchange and your circumstances it's quite likely it's cheaper to transfer usdt between exchanges. For example (The opportunities to do this have been fairly snatched up by everyone doing this or similar sadly): you utilize two exchanges and see bitcoin trading at a much lower dollar amount on one exchange. So you send your tether to this exchange and exchange it to buy bitcoin. Then you send your bitcoin across to the other exchange where it's valued higher so that you can buy tether and repeat until the difference in price is smaller than your transfer fees. You net the difference in price minus the transfer fees. If you were to do this with other cash based payment methods it would be much more expensive and take longer which would cost you opportunity as you could only trade as much as you already had cash in the exchange

I've never once denied anthropomorphic climate change and I haven't even been alive for 4 decades and you're blaming me? You're unhinged. I'm open to solutions but all the ones which have been posited and gained traction are medicines far worse than the disease. I'm confident that the right solutions will emerge but to actively pursue a bad solution just to look good on paper and build momentum for the movement goes against what I believe in and is a detriment for the movement itself.

Or perhaps we understand that the reason we are in this problem is because the people in charge acted without fully understanding or ignoring the consequences of their actions and made big changes with too much haste. There have already been several expensive and well meaning, but ultimately short sighted 'green' efforts which ultimately increased the net emission of greenhouse gasses than if they had simply done nothing. If you place harsh restrictions to reduce carbon emissions too quickly hundreds of millions will starve. It's an absolute and inescapable certainty. Some of us aren't willing to pull that lever on the trolley problem presented before us as they find it repugnant. Especially if things are visible on the horizon which may make drastic action unnecessary, such as the next generation of nuclear power and new products like graphene which effectively sequesters atmospheric carbon as part of it's manufacturing process.

I don't have an opinion one way or another but no matter the topic if it's from a scientific journal always read the methodology. If it's from a mainstream media source try to forget what you read and always seek out the original scientific article

It's their fault tragedies like this happen. Maybe not this particular case but you can't just call everyone to act for the sake of acting. If you reduce fuel outputs that result in an increase the price of energy the poorest of us will feel the squeeze. If it's too much they'll do what they must to survive.

There's a sure and simple solution to greatly reduce our carbon output for anyone who thinks that we need to reduce carbon. Create enough new nuclear power plants to price-out fossil fuel based energy. Anyone rattling the sabers at consumers is actively part of the problem burying this lede and avoiding the real solutions. In this sense the conservatives are ironically on the right side of history.

Disagree, I have an issue with problem 4 in that it tests your ability to parse a long winded, explanation in a stressful environment. It's the type of problem that is left for last on a test and thus the results will be skewed with a higher fail rate due to did not attempts. The test is timed at 1.5 hrs, reading that question alone takes a non-trivial amount of time for someone experienced at programming in a pressure free environment. Writing the solution for this problem is trivial once the question finally gets around to finishing it's description. This assessment is meant is to test one's skills on the subject of computer science not on their skills of reading a crap-ton of meandering documentation but it does the latter rather than the former and is therefore a bad question and the college board should feel bad.

Very true, although the issue with recipes is due to the flaws of current search algorithms and the SEO to leverage them. If Google sees that you are going to a site and without evidence of you engaging it'll fare worse than those that make you read n scroll. Boring the reader with your life's story of how your grandma made this dish and it's been passed down and yadda yadda will boost you closer to the top results while all the good recipe sites fall to the abyss of the Nth page

You post mentions testing for repetitiveness to detect AI, but you touch on the idea of repetitiveness 3x in 4 paragraphs. Obviously there was nothing wrong with your post, it was probably written yourself by hand and not an AI unless you were trying to make some sort of point, that being said it does not pass your own testing criterion when I try to apply them against it. I would argue that a student writing succinctly would actually look odd. Most students are given a subject to report on which they are newly learned. They don't have enough depth of knowledge to write volumes on it, so they will try to fluff their papers. In my opinion AI has advanced well enough for some models that if you run the prompt a few times you can get a result with none of the hallmarks you mentioned for the length of an average grade school essay. This could be taken even further if you the student were to break it down into multiple sections and tie it all together with a hand written intro / conclusion.

I don't know of Schmitt's standing, he's not my Attorney General but the interesting bit is the communications that they allow us to see. This goes far beyond granting personnel and resources allowing Fox to line up talking points, it's equivalent to loading up an AI Tucker Carlson to listen in on your online conversations and for him to insert himself into them as he sees fit or remove them outright. The emails imply to me that Facebook is being given direct oversight and monitoring by the government to check on their progress on multiple campaigns to steer the conversations and opinions of the public. Many of them read like progress reports given to a manager rather than a company being given assistance at their own request. I didn't make the OP's claim that these companies are being paid as I don't believe my definition as such overlaps with yours but since you bring up the topic... The government has granted companies like Facebook hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies and something of much greater value, they have acted extremely favorable in terms of how legislature is enforced towards them. Yes, they've had to give Facebook the proverbial hand slap every once in a while but on the whole it's been disgustingly lovey-dovey. I absolutely consider this payment in advance, as companies like Facebook would feel obligated to take into consideration 'guidance' given to them from the government lest the relationship goes sour and the favors given dry up and bestowed upon a competitor instead. If the government had to resort to something a bit more compulsory than simply asking nicely it would be likely we would never hear about it until it's declassified around the time we are old men "in the interest of national security or some such" so I will not publicly speculate on such matters and keep any such suspicions to myself.

Broaden your question, and if you have the same stance to the broader picture then you are the delusional one. The US government with all its decades of international meddling would never dare to try any sort of meddling with any social media platform on any topic for any reason, preposterous right, it's an absolute certainty? Even if all contrary opinions about Covid and the vaccine are incorrect, why wouldn't they 'assist' social media companies in 'managing' conversations that might endanger very lucrative multi billion dollar contracts. I feel many agencies would see it irresponsible to not engage in such activity. Also, they're being brought to court for doing exactly this https://ago.mo.gov/home/news/2...

Perhaps your definition of abusing their position to police social media differs from mine https://ago.mo.gov/home/news/2...