Please read: Cooked bean variety.

The "beans in your pantry" data you're looking at are probably per serving. Here, let me grab the beans in *my* pantry. Roland BLACK BEANS Habichuelas Negras Supreme Calidad. Net weight 15.5 OZ / 439g. Serving size: 130g. Calories per serving: 180.

There's 453,6 grams per pound, so that's 0,968 pounds. 439/130 = 3,15 servings, times 180 calories = 567. In 0,968 pounds, that's 586 calories.

Or look online. "172 grams of black beans (cooked, boiled, unsalted) contains 227 Calories." Do the math.

I'm not sure exactly how you expect something that is 70% carbs (of which are 36% fibre) and 26% protein to be low-cal. Do you think it has the moisture content of celery or something?

Oh thank god. Next time malware wipes data from my drive I can blame the OS vendor for providing a system call that allows the removal of said entry from the filesystem. Good to know the malware author isn't to blame simply because the output of their software made a different piece of software do something.

I especially like the absurdity of your sentence. You called AI a tool. Which it is. Tools are just that, they serve a purpose. You don't blame a hammer for breaking your window, you don't blame a car for letting a bankrobber outrun cops, you don't blame a gun for someone else having pulled the trigger.

Why do you turn off your brain when it comes to using an AI tool which followed a specific instruction given by a nefarious actor? Does the phrase trigger something in you?

I wonder if the kool aid will wear off before or after you understand the concept of facetious sarcasm.

So if malware uses bitlocker to encrypt your files and doesn't share the key with you then it's Microsoft's fault rather than the malware writer?

The author of the software injected instructions to software you are running. How is it the software's fault for following instructions and using its capability?

This doesn't remove the ability to run 32bit processes. It removes the ability for a 32bit process (with 32bit pointers) to pretend it's a 64bit process. Virtually no one used this. x86 != x32. I'll bet you've never come across an x32 ARCH in the wild. No one is removing the x86 ABIs (at least not i686, some of the earlier ones are gone).

This isn't 32bit support as much as it is x64 support for a 32bit application. It has virtually no use case and wasn't really adopted for anything. Anyone wanting to use x64 instructions just compiled x64 binaries. There was a thought that maybe creating 32bit binaries with the ability to access features of x64 CPUs would improve performance, but ultimately it didn't.

Going forward you'll still be able to run 32bit software. i686 != x32 The latter is an ABI no one used and the former isn't being removed.

There's a difference in support for individual hardware, and providing support for a whole ABI. The potential attack surface and the related code is much larger for the latter.

Just like the previous announcement quite a few people focused on the loss of a HAM radio interface card, but buried the lead that the kernel actually removed a whole networking API that this card depended on instead.

Whether the police use facial recognition, or a private member of the public uses facial recognition and hands that data to the police is a distinction without a difference. While it's great that a fugitive was caught, what really needs to happen now is the journalist or rather the facial recognition data source the journalist used need to be dragged through the courts for breaching of privacy laws.

Did the journalist get clear and explicit warning to the guy for the use of facial recognition as required by the GDPR disclosure clauses?
Did the journalist use only their own tech? If not then the "Data Processors" may have something to say about their legal role here.

As far as I can see there's still a terrorist running free... and apparently working for a newspaper.

Yeah I too support anyone who goes and punches people I don't like. They are heros!

Where have I heard this before?... I was going to make a reference to Germany last century but really these days we can just cite America today.

I hope on Monday your computer is infected with ransomware. I'm sure you'll roll over and take it like a bitch, because you wouldn't be a "dork who would threaten someone for writing code" right?

It actively instructed the AI agent to delete work and attempted to obscure itself as the source of it. It may not cause harm now, but the original act was inexcusable. You are defending actual malware.

You're white-washing a black hat hacker, that isn't a morally high act of rebellion. This act of rebellion had a nefarious outcome which resulted in data deletion. There are other ways to go about this.

I've personally stopped hiring or trusting any people in IT because of stories where administrators get disgruntled and damage company systems. Clearly the problem here isn't AI, it's people, not just those who terrorise (it's not "rebellion" when it causes meaningful damage to an unsuspecting victim), but also those who excuse or dismiss this practice.

I hope someone with good lawyers starts testing how good this guy's lawyers are.

Sure. If you don't know what the words mean. Wait... are you the Botox woman? I didn't think you were on Slashdot too.

Wow tell us you don't know the point of vaccinations without telling us.

... you say "unintended", just how did you think "mRNA technologies" work? Whisper sweet nothings into your ear and hope there's no detectable change in cardiovascular systems and COVID just magically ignores you because it thinks you're a cool dude?

There's nothing "unintended" about this.

Apparently, you have never installed Nagios. Back in the days, when you ran the install script, it wrote out what it was doing, and then suddenly the lines appeared:

It was the same warning to you to vet any code before executing it.

Pretty high, I would wager. Alcohol and coding don't mix.

Everyone knows that 10x engineers validate inputs and carefully manage dependencies; so clearly there's no risk of unexpected behavior.