Oh, my sweet summer child..

Phones for all their surveillance uses still won't serve up information about your body state to your employer, which constitutes some of the hype around a future of employers requiring wearables. The public applications are of the sort people would volunteer for: payment and identification including for physical access.

Granted I'm sure there are other technologies that could obsolete needing a chip, but my overall point is that these technologies are presented to the public as a negotiation of conveniences--especially with air travel in particular, where the state has recently seen fit to insert part-time gestapo as a solution to a problem that never existed.

"You don't have to wear the bracelet if you just get the chip, you know."

I recall a letter in New England Journal of Medicine in the 90s, where the writer was commenting on a previous article suggesting therapeutic uses for cannabis. The crucial statement was something like "medicine has advanced such that we no longer treat conditions by burning leaves".

I agree except for "Irak created ISIS" , as it wasn't merely a consequence of our interference, but a deliberate funding and arming of extremist Sunnis that make the Taliban or Al Qaeda look tame. google Timber Sycamore

Location tracking shows that they did not upgrade to Outlook Interplanetary, terminates service.

They just need to RTFM: Zero Gravity Toilet Instructions

It wasn't actually Kubrick. This carefully researched documentary explains everything: Moonwalkers

I was working with prototype telephone line equipment with a new solid state (plus inductor) ringing generator. The ringing generator chips tended to explosively self destruct, spalling and tossing a piece of the chip package. Proper documentation of test results being essential, I put pieces of masking tape on the lab floor where each landed, annotated with the date and time.

Hollywood got it even before Godwin: They Saved Hitler's Brain (1968)

Where I live the retirement savings system is quite different, so maybe I'm not understanding the US system well (or, at all). But I'm sure many people with retirement savings are not financially savvy and will delegate all decisions on how to invest their savings to some financial management companies, brokers, banks or however it works in the US. So doesn't that now allow those companies to invest people's savings into cryptocurrency, obviously with potentially very unfortunate results for said savings? Can they at least be potentially sued for financial mismanagement if they invest people's savings into some crypto and it loses all its value?

This right here is one of the biggest problems with modern identity politics, and current-day politics in general. And it's absolutely a product of binary American politics. There's an assumption here that "the right-wing" wants to "conquer" the minorities. Any minorities? For example Jewish descent people are a minority in US, albeit a significant one, I see no attempt to conquer them. Very rich people are also a minority. People with red hair are a minority. I mean forchrissakes, feminists would have all women be a part of the alphabet minority big tent, even though there are slightly more of them then there are men.

Also, I don't want to stereotype but a lot of people from certain minorities are not so keen on other minorities. For example, muslims I believe would now be considered a potentially oppressed minority? Many of them are not so keen on homosexuality. Neither would be recent migrants from some African countries where any practice of it is illegal. There are of course tensions between some feminists and transvestites. That's a pretty diverse (in the traditional sense of the word) range of viewpoints. Yet all of these people are supposed to join the LGBT hivemind or 'community' for fear of the right wing oppressive bogeyman.

In this community, who decides the common alphabet policy? There is no official committee of any kind. As far as I can see it sort of organically emerges from social media commentators and the results as far as I'm concerned don't make a lot of sense, and yet everyone is supposed to rationalize away any doubts and objections lest the right wing oppressors get them.

'The right wing' as far as I can see is not a hivemind either, not even in just US. For example your traditional evangelicals and big city economic libertarians would not agree on a lot of things. I'm seeing a similar tendency there of demanding everyone rally behind Trump lest 'the communists' take over, but it doesn't seem as cultish as on the what is currently considered to be the left in US. There is at least a little bit of disagreement permitted.

So perhaps there isn't really the side of good and the side of evil, but a bunch of people who want different things and/or have different ideas on how best to get these things. I've said it before, US desperately, desperately needs a third party. And a fourth, fifth, sixth etc. This trying to force everyone into one of two teams is producing very unhealthy results.

What "age-appropriate" resources are we talking about that are supposedly needed? Porn? That is avaliable in large quantities catering to every sexual orientation and fetish. Something to reassure young people of non-traditional sexual orientations that what they're feeling is not unusual? That is needed, but that it looks to me that now this has been achieved, and then some. You do not want others to push young people to be something they're not, but that goes both ways. Children should be left to figure out who they are by themselves, when they're ready. With the totally rampant virtue-seeking on the internet what I'm seeing is people trying to push their agendas on children ('children' being the key word here) too young to understand social dynamics at play here. And of course there's the straightforward grooming.

That sounds like a pretty powerful argument against such resources. Many kids will not "have enough sense not to do anything stupid". It's naive to think that "age appropriate" resources will make anything different - see for example the reported number of paedophiles using Roadblox. Any 'community' will always end up full of adults pursuing their own goals, of various degrees of unsavouriness and criminality. Who will end up enforcing that age appropriateness? Businesses that run such resources that directly financially benefit from as many people using them as possible, whatever their intentions?

As far as I'm concerned, adults' role in children's sexual development is to stay the fuck out and let them figure it out on their own (answering questions when they're asked). Once young people have done that (again, when they're ready to do so) the role of adults becomes not to stigmatize their choices. That is all that is needed.

The poster below me also makes an excellent point. The whole LGBTQWhateverElse++ mixes up simple homosexuality, various fetishes and straight up mental illness. Those are not the same things and should not be treated as such.

The floppy disk ("diskette") was originally developed as a microcode load device for the 370/145.

It's not really the same. With the photoshop filter the artist can choose which filter they want to use, apply it, check whether they like the end result, go back to the original if they don't, apply a different filter on top of that if it's not quite right, tweak the results of the filter by hand, etc etc and only after all that if they're completely satisfied with the end result it will go into the actual game binaries. Certain textures may benefit from one type of filters while others need another type or nothing at all.

With nvidia filter, as I understand it, the decision is just whether to use the one filter for everything, or not. Apparently you can set the intensity of the filter (i.e. how much you want to AI-ify your texture) per object, but that's about all the fine control you get with it. And that decision may well be out of artists' hands - if management mandates dlss 5, not much you can do.

The results of generative AI, from what I've seen, are attractive but kind of bland, and once you've seen enough they all look pretty similar. That seems no less true for the examples they gave for dlss 5. So for shovelware that uses all the standard assets it may improve the look, but for something where the artists were going for a specific atmosphere and specific character look, it certainly won't.