Certainly! Your point raises a crucial, multifaceted issue that merits deeper examination. It's not just about detection accuracy, it's about the evolving interplay between human intention and algorithmic assistance — a dynamic that resists simple binary classification.

When we delve into the mechanics of modern AI tools, it becomes evident that the boundary between "correction" and "generation" is increasingly porous. Consider the following nuances:

Gradual authorship spectra: Text exists on a continuum — from fully human-crafted prose, to human writing with AI-suggested punctuation, to passages where the AI has restructured entire paragraphs. Detection tools, however, often operate on categorical assumptions that fail to capture this complexity.

The feedback loop phenomenon: Furthermore, as writers internalize AI-suggested patterns — Oxford commas, em dashes, and certain syntactic rhythms — their "human" baseline shifts. This creates a fascinating, almost paradoxical scenario: the more one learns from AI feedback, the more one's unassisted writing may trigger detection algorithms.

Contextual markers vs. stylistic choices: Notably, certain signals — like the increased use of "delve," "testament," or negative parallelism — may reflect genuine stylistic evolution rather than automated generation. It's a testament to how AI influences language culture broadly, not just individual documents.

In conclusion, the challenge you identify is not merely technical but philosophical — forcing us to reconsider what we mean by "authentic" voice in an era of human-AI collaboration. The question, ultimately, is not whether a tool assisted in the writing, but whether the ideas, arguments, and intellectual labor remain genuinely human.

I hope proves helpful! Please let me know if you would like to delve deeper into any specific aspect of these findings, or if you would like me to explore the broader implications for content strategy.

"do a little research" - you do realize that your post would have had just the same educational value but not made you come across as a jerk if you had just left off that first sentence?

You won't be able to buy it because they will sell it to China, and then they will build more fabs and they will be for HBM, not DDR.

Utilities are heavily regulated because they need to be. They have demonstrated it time and again. PGE in particular has proven it several well-publicized times that you surely have heard of.

The upshot of these regulations is that utilities including PGE only really make money from new generation projects, so they certainly would like to engage in them. But the longer they run, the more they cost, and the more PGE can charge as a result. This also motivates them to build the least cost-effective options.

%command% -f -CPUCount:6 -CPUPriority:high -intro:off -CustomResolution:enabled -r3840x2160x32

There is a light version of the patch that only does fixes. If you want all of the content you will have to run Windows, or run the Windows version in some kind of VM. You can use protontricks or steamtinkerlaunch to install the provided openjdk and the required windows runtime and then run the jarfile installer, and copy the 4gb patch into the Apps directory alongside the game executable and run

wine 4gb_patch.exe "SimCity 4.exe"

To install the 4GB patch to a clean install.

I am running SC4 in dwproton.

The short answer is yes, but the longer answer is it's complicated.

Devices with back doors may also dial out from your network. It's common for devices to phone home to check for updates and such so such activity is not necessarily even seen as suspicious, though of course in an enterprise context you should be disabling automatic updates and/or reconfiguring them to use internal servers.

Devices which might be malicious should be segregated onto their own physically isolated networks connected only through firewalls with policies for both ingress and egress so that you can control both types of threat. But it's better still when your software and firmware is OSS, and you build your own images and deploy them to the hardware yourself to have the best chance to avoid the possibility in the first place. Even this doesn't completely preclude such attacks, but it does offer some protection (mostly in proportion to the level at which you're auditing the source files, and the percentage of OSS.)

TL;DR: It's smartest to segregate and whitelist traffic in both directions for sketchy devices.

I don't know that it's really "the EEs" that caused the problem. I suspect it's "the regular programmers who found themselves doing embedded programming jobs". They didn't care how it could be made to work, they just wanted it to work. Most of these haven't even been on USB until recently, they were all on I2C or SPI. However there ARE some standards now and corporations should just use them like everyone else. Since they don't, the semi-pro level stuff is superior, I'm pretty sure the RGB controller I'm using is put out by a one-person company.

Sorry your heart is dead, but a lot of us still understand fun.

Really? Apple produces software which supports RGB LEDs on PCs? What's it called?

More important than breaking up PGE, we should nationalize the distribution infrastructure. PGE has demonstrated time and again that they lack the necessary responsibility. I refer again to burning down much of Paradise, CA by skipping maintenance, as the fire was caused by a line falling because a hook wore through due to being in service for 99 years. Surely they could have caught that with an inspection any time over several decades as the wear would have been easily visible long before failure, if only they had actually done inspections.

PGE is in fact now complaining that they cannot reasonably maintain some of the primary infrastructure we depend on for literally our entire society to function, so we should reasonably just take them at their word and take it away from them. They have been poor stewards at best.

It can't simulate emotion. It can simulate an emotional response. The difference is critical and every human who gets emotionally involved with AI is making the same mistake.

We know that you don't care about children because you are in favor of child rape.

No one is running away, but you child rapists sure do run at the mouth.

The problem is there are many many different pieces of hardware which would have to be supported and nobody is bothering. Most of the RGB hardware uses its own interface instead of a standard. So instead this generic driver for direct hardware access has been used. The situation on Linux is actually not very different, except on Linux there are udev rules which make it possible to assign permissions to specific devices to users or groups and have more security than you get when doing the same thing on Windows.

I think the obvious counter to an influx in bug reports / pull requests is to have the first layer of review of bug reports / pull requests to be AI as well.

Final remains humans.

I dunno, if that's how people vote, that's how it should be.

Though there is a big question of how they plan to run a vote with multiple options. I hope it's a Condorcet system to avoid the risk of watering down one side with similar competing options...