Ducking Google keyboard bullshit. I typed that how I wanted it in quotes and Google "corrected" it for me.
It spelled it C o v e r g e d
I already replaced my browser, now I have to replace my keyboard again? So irritating
Judges aren't there to serve us or they would treat officer testimony that way, because there is literally no less reliable form of evidence. It's actually less reliable than unsolicited third party reports.
It's only bad PR if the people you're marketing to are intelligent
Desktop Firefox is pretty good for me these days.
Mobile is trash, slashdot makes it crash multiple times a day. I'm using brave now, it has the best ad blocker...
Yesterday I got an unwanted Gemini result at work where I can't block them that wrote the word "covered" as "covered". That was fast from the only error as well. Public Gemini is clearly the most shit of all LLMs.
What happened to you? Is this long COVID?
I'm in Fb jail right now, presumably for my political views, but they haven't actually told me what comment was problematic.
For it's many faults, at least slashdot the platform isn't known for opposing free speech like that
"It's also pretty wild the button specifically uses the term "AI slop" and not, say, "It seems this was generated with AI."
It makes sense. They don't care if the content is AI generated, this is not a moral stance because linkedin doesn't do those. This is people complaining about slop and LinkedIn pretending to care
Actually, it's exactly the same issue. Just using a different program.
It's not the same issue.
The pdf redaction folks drew black bars over extant text and hid it that way.
The excel chap clicked on "hide this tab".
There is no evidence that anyone was trying to redact anything when they hid the tab, they may have just been trying not to confuse the recipient. The person who hid the sheet is not the person who shared the document. Any similarity which did exist would be irrelevant because format shifting to a PDF would still solve this problem.
The example might have been chosen because synthsizing cocaine from raw materials is hard, so revealing a process that begins with "obtain illegal drugs" is unlikely to do harm.
In many cases, coca leaf is not illegal. You can buy coca tea in Peru. People frequently bring it back into this country because it just looks like tea. It's a reasonably mild stimulant, similar in effect to smoking a cigar. I understand that you need quite a bit to make any significant amount of cocaine, but I've never tried so I wouldn't really know.
If a library handed out an actual recipe with very clear instructions on making cocaine that also forgets to note how dangerous step four is, then yea, the library is liable.
If that were true then everyone who ever provided anyone a copy of the anarchist's cookbook would be in trouble.
I prefer good movies where off the chart level of suspension of disbelief aren't required.
That's reasonable, but what does it have to do with The Matrix, a film whose main premise was changed from something that makes sense to something that doesn't in order to be accessible to idiots?
Given his history, I don't think so
That's what I was talking about in another thread in this discussion when I said PDFs have their own issues but they wouldn't apply here. That's a problem when redacting PDFs, WHICH NO ONE SHOULD EVER DO. They should either go back to the source document, redact that, and create a new PDF; Or they should create an image from the PDF, redact that, and then they can publish that as a new PDF.
Azure did better than expected, that's it.
Give them a few more months of business as usual and there will be a correction
How come financial advisors never seem to be as wealthy as they claim they'll make you?
