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.
Why care about the person behind the Banksy signature?
The art is the important part here.
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.
All this shows is that society does not need to consume that much fuel, we can adapt.
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.
just keep the poor busy with cheap entertainment and use shock and awe to distract and confuse us
People are already being entertained buy the unending revelations from the Epstein files.
And shocked, though not particularly awed.
God created a vast universe He isn't happy with JUST us. That is one argument.
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)
Most of it is aliens flying around in stealth spaceships. We can't spot them, except that they haven't figured out a way to hide their mass.
So galaxies with more DM are more technologically developed than the others. In this all-DM galaxy they must have used up almost everything else to build ships.
No, it's just some of that "darkness on the face of the deep" left over from Creation.
God didn't need all of that "waste and void" to shape into what He wanted for our universe, so He left bits of it in its natural form here and there.
it's constantly adjusted to match experimental data.
Some of us think basing our beliefs on evidence is a good thing.
Unlike tradition and revelation, where new evidence is something to be ignored or explained away.
Why is it hard to imagine a particle that doesn't respond to the weak, strong or electromagnetic force?
Because they don't want to.
Perhaps all their imagination is all used up on other things, like people who suffer the ill effects of 5G from nearby cell towers that haven't even been activated.
Every time some random Dunning-Kruger slashdotter displays his ignorance to the entire Internet, a kitten dies somewhere.
We must be amid a major feline extinction event.
I have a theory that it's impossible to prove anything, but I can't prove it.
