do wear capes and masks.... and helmets.

â

like this ??

Seriously, all Jensans fault.

HE knew he had a big demand, that would cause him to use most of the supply thus stuffing up the whole world.
He should have either pre-pared SKhynix and said, tripple your ram output or, not bought all the ram off the supply.
So they could either increase DDR4 supply, or make lower specced more supply of DDR5.
Seriously how much ram do they need? A trillion peta bytes of ram? Improve your damn code first, instead of committing 50 billion in purchases,
a smart person would buy less more often, and improve code, rather than lazily buy 90% of the world supply just to be king.
I wonder when people will start ram raiding data centers for 3 million in GPUs and RAM in the pickup.

ClarityCheck left more than 9 million image files accessible in an unsecured Amazon S3 bucket, despite advertising its reverse-image search as "private and secure."

These privacy rapists are all the same!

It's not the SCREEN that does the damage, it's the brain rot the screen is used to access. Also the amount of time speant with the screen. Moderation is good. This shouldn't surprise people, but since it is a nuanced understanding and not just screen bad!, it will.

Then why are LLMs so fucking stupid?

BOTH screwed up. The system shouldn't have made the match and the human should have done a better job seeing that the match was wrong. I'll go one larger and say the people who created the procedures screwed up because they didn't make allowances for the possibility of the first two screw-ups.

The problem with this argument, from the shop's point of view, is that the UK is in the middle of a shoplifting epidemic. The policing resources simply aren't there to deal with small scale (or even flagrant and much larger scale) shoplifting. It now seems to be rare for police officers to attend reports of shoplifting at all. And so effectively shoplifting becomes legalised, which is obviously hurting the big chain stores financially and potentially devastating for smaller shops.

Shops are trying to find some way to respond to this to protect themselves. They typically tell staff, even security staff, not to get physical with shoplifters as they walk out, not least because the risk of something worse happening and the business becoming liable for it is significant. But then the shoplifters know this and some of them will just walk in and openly empty a shelf into a bag and walk out again without paying because they know no-one will try to stop them.

Shops also know that our court system is completely overwhelmed at the moment and there is little chance of bringing any successful civil action to recover damages from shoplifters who aren't even being arrested by the police and put through the criminal justice system.

So what do they have left? Basically, they're trying to spot the "usual suspects" and refuse them entry in the first place, which is a less risky proposition in terms of potential for physical violence and quite effective because a lot of shoplifting is done by the same people, or they're trying to make it more physically difficult to steal goods, for example by using locking systems or keeping high value items behind counters where customers can't just pick them up. But these systems aren't perfect, far from it, and what we're discussing here today is one of the significant problems.

Obviously this kind of technology can have very bad consequences, as we see here. I don't think it should be used if it's not highly reliable, given the potential harm done in cases where it gets something wrong. But I do have some sympathy with the shops who are looking for something -- anything -- to reduce the threat they're facing because the rule of law has failed in retail settings.

The problem is, people have been over-trusting technology since technology was invented. Consider the '70s when corporate representatives were so fond on the phrase "But the computer says...". Yes, you could hear the bold italics in their voice, as if it was the infallible final word on everything.

If THE COMPUTER says you shoplifted, rest assured, some dolt in a suit will treat that like God's own word booming from the clouds.

But every person who sets foot in that store probably "kinda" looks like someone who has shoplifted. And since shoplifters look like everybody else, everyone COULD be a shoplifter.

Fear used to be a powerful tool - used to be that a President doing something illegal would get them impeached, and they'd rather resign instead. How times have changed.

Perhaps the guillotine should be brought back for ' treason, bribery, or "other high crimes and misdemeanors" '.

The point is that we get back the same void that existed before.

"Meta Faces $1.4 Trillion Reckoning In Latest Trial Over Social Media Addiction"

"Privacy Rapist Meta[stasize] Faces $1.4 Trillion Reckoning In Latest Trial Over Social Media Addiction"

There FTFY.

""I think that ordinary people don't trust [...] the tech industry and always suspect that we are cooking up some new way to screw them over."

And why would anyone think any differently, given that's exactly what these tech companies have been doing in their pursuit of the all mighty buck first and above all else??

(P.S. like how it tries to clump all other companies and governments in existence in with their group to make it sound like the tech industry isn't the only ones screwing people over.)

Many have voted with hairspray and a sawzall.