However, it's because I believe many great consumer technology leaps were driven by porn: photography, home video, the internet, the smart phone, etc.

The smartphone??

I mean it was convincingly invented, if not widely used by IBM in 1993. It was made to look very impressive (albeit wired) in the late 90s by Olivetti. And of course PDAs approaching from the other end being more computer and less data. J2ME phones came out which were a pile of shit. Maybe you could get a shit game on them. I don't really know if Blackberries count: they were messaging first but did they have any generality beyond that? There was of course the legendary N900, and some impressive (for the time) yet deeply wonky Symbian devices.Then in 2007, Apple came out with a rather good dumbphone which was turned into a smartphone by Cydia, which Apple then got in on the game a year later (which is a bit weird if you think about it).

None of those were porn. It was all about connectivity and messaging and nerdy shit especially businessnerd shit (except the N900 which was real nerd shit). Then fashion, then just plain old usefulness.

I mean that's not to say people don't watch porn on a phone on a plane (shit head in 23A knows what I'm talking about you utter wanker, but not in that case literally thank god), but I don't there's a convincing case that porn had a significant role. Pocket computers were obviously useful, even more so with a data connection, and people had been trying to get them working for years before it finally took off.

Is this true for animated films too?

Yes.

What about hybrid live action and animated?

Yes.

Animated films that are CGI based rather than hand drawn/painted?

Yes.

Hand drawn that are computer "painted"?

Yes.

itâ(TM)s literally the only site I can think of that canâ(TM)t properly display text.

There, fixed it for you.

In the hard sciences, one usually is happy about advancements, not about keeping it secret until one publishes oneself.

Haha, no.

If you don't publish papers, you don't get a job and so you won't be doing hard science anymore due to an imperative to eat and find shelter. So no, no one is happy if someone takes their mostly complete results and scoops them to publication. It's also why that's widely regarded as what's technically known as a "dick move".

A t shirt?

Maybe a jumper. Maybe when a light jacket at the lower end. But a thick jacket at 12 degrees? Nope!

Wait what?

The nighttime lows in SF were 12C. That's think jacket weather???

I think Americans now spend so much time in climate controlled buildings that they've forgotten what weather is like.

I prefer the Martian bear.

Forgetting he exists would be the best punishment.

It can, lots of countries, especially America regulate things outside their borders.

Laws can be enforced against local subsidiaries or any foreign executive who happens to wander into an area you have an extradition agreement with. Or in Americas case, any country you can successfully invade to kidnap someone. And in Putin's case anywhere you can get an assassination squad in. Also Israel's Mossad unit is notorious for plausible deniable foreign enforcement.

This isn't a question of should, it's a question of what can physical be done.

Yes, and?

Countries, including America, have investigatory rules where you are not allowed to talk about it at all. Want to do business in a country? You need to obey their rules. And you don't have a leg to stand on complaining if you have similar roles because then you're not saying the rules are morally wrong, you're saying you're special.

It is absolutely not improper for the UK to do such a thing and the US would have no qualms about using a national security letter (is that the right term?) on an American subsidiary of a UK company. It's how laws and jurisdictions work. Having a foreign ownership doesn't give you special dispensation to break a country's laws. Apple UK are absolutely subject to every single one of the UK's laws. They're also subject to quite a lot of American ones, having an American owner, but that's their problem not the UK's, and doesn't give any special treatment other than what America can force on the world under the universal law of might is right.

Note this is all orthogonal to what I personally think of the RIPA (my quite strong opinions are in other much older Slashdot posts).

I have the opposite, can always get in with IPv6, but IPv4 results in me getting a lot of loops.

I suspect what you're seeing (and what I'm seeing) are both coincidences and reCAPTCHA doesn't care. From what I've read, reCAPTCHA only cares about IP addresses when it suspects you're using a server as an egress point (suggesting a hacked server), and blocking IPv6 would be insane given how few IPv6 servers there are, and what proportion of the consumer Internet uses IPv6 addresses by default.

Because it's marketing.

Generative AI is not unsafe in the way GenAI advocates are claiming. It's unsafe in general - it's causing education deficits, it's causing headaches for companies that have adopted it who no longer have business knowledge over how their own companies operate, it's slamming websites with bogus requests and causing the web to go offline, and when the web isn't offline people are discouraged from visiting websites by "AI summaries" that supposedly answer the questions that you'd normally go to the websites to get answers for. Also the false information given by "AI summaries" has probably caused a problem or two.

But in terms of taking over nuclear missiles and launching them at capital cities, and all the other ludicrous genAI claims made over the last few weeks by employees of OpenAI and Anthropic suggesting they plan to exterminate humanity, no, it's a fucking word predictor on steriods, it just doesn't have that power.

OpenAI and Anthropic are spreading this lie not because anyone who works for those companies believes it, but because a real AI, the type of thing that people are expecting something called "AI" to actually be, would be capable of reasoning that humans are the enemy (etc), and might go Skynet on humanity. If they say "Nah, you're all fine, what we have here is spicy autocomplete", then their potential for an IPO goes down the toilet.

These are dishonest companies that are doing everything that they can to pump up a tool with marginal utility in order to run off with the money before it becomes revealed that, no, their tech is unsustainable and was never as good as the cultists claimed anyway.

That's why politicians are talking about kill switches. They're being duped by Altman and friends into thinking that's necessary.

> Any programming language needs the equivalent of Rust's "unsafe"

Not really, no.

> Without it would be impossible to do any input or output.

Have you ever used any programming languages other than C, C++, etc? The important thing is that the language itself implements an interface between the OS and programs written in that language. In addition to that, most usually have an ABI that can be used to glue assembler libraries to the language - this is not the equivalent of "unsafe", because it's not part of the language, and a person downloading an application can see right away that it includes external libraries that interface with it.

Unsafe is in Rust because... well, Rust is designed to try to make memory safety attractive to devs who traditionally don't like being told what to do or that their favorite language sucks. Which is why, for example, advocates go to great lengths to claim Rust doesn't have garbage collection when, actually, it does, it's just not mark and sweep. Rust is as much about public relations and trying to get people to stop assuming they have to sacrifice safety for efficiency and low level access as it is about producing a useful programming languages.

And, unfortunately, part of that PR is to say "Look, we even have an "unsafe" keyword so you can get rid of (some of) our restrictions on you for those rare times you actually need it", and the group Rust is aimed at, of course, go "Oh, I can do this with a 2% speed up if I use unsafe, so I'm going to do the unsafe version, that's what makes Rust great" *insert Naked Gun facepalming scene here*.

I like Rust. But let's not pretend "unsafe" is a positive thing, or that most languages need it. Rust needs it because of its intended audience, but plenty of languages don't let the code itself be unsafe. Some have an unsafe keyword, some allow linking with unsafe assembler packages, and some... honest... don't have either, and your code is only unsafe if your compiler/interpreter is.

"Hey AI

Fortunately, I don't need to engage with AI slop.

You live in a city that has tried to deliberately make life hard on motorist

I do not. Make an actual argument. Don't rely on AI to give you predigested bites of biased news sources in lieu of thinking

Google is punking me

And yet you based your argument on this. Funny though how your argument is exactly the same no matter what.

Boy, let me tell you about my experience

Blah de blah. I got off my bike yesterday on the way into work to help push a motorist's broken down car out of the carriageway (where it was causing a bit of a jam) into a spare space. Do not pretend that cars don't break down, crashes never happen and etc.

Here's the cities I randomly picked

You really need to stop relying on AI as much. The slop is rotting your brain.

Istanbul isn't even 100% IN Europe. You're comparing LA to Venice, a city where the primary motorized form of transport is by BOAT because it's literally built in the sea. Birmingham is the the motoring city where cars were prioritized at the expense of all else and here you are saying how Birmingham isn't working well. It's something they are trying to fix now. And Madrid? Have you ever been to Madrid? It's all fuck-off massive roads all over the place everywhere. It's a car city with horrendous congestion. It does not support your point either.

I'm going to play the stupid "plug shit into google/AI without thinking game" too.

LA average commute time: 30-35 minutes
LA average commute distance: 9-14 miles.
That make the LA average commute speed somewhere between 15 and 28mph. That's pro car? I can apparently commute faster on push bike than many people driving in the car utopia of LA!

Exactly how much do you think public transit infrastructure costs? By the time they gutted it, California's HSR project

Right of course you picked the single worst example of infrastructure planing in the entire world. The Elizabeth line cost about 16 billion and at peak time past the busiest point moves about twice as many people as one of the largest highways in North America. And it did that without introducing any significant amount of air or noise pollution into the city it runs through.

so let's look at France, probably the cheapest HSR builders in Europe per unit throughput. The London-Lyon corridor - LGV Sud-Est - cost â4,65B to build (would be about â8B today). 409km, so â19,6M/km. Traffic equivalent of a 6-8 lane highway. A 6-lane greenfield highway in Europe costs â12-20M/km. So even the French don't beat road costs with rail.

Firstly France ain't the cheapest. Second you've underestimated the rail capacity. Thirdly that makes it in the same ballpark as ot which somehow you determine is a pro-car point. And finally, railway speed is well over twice that of the road, making it the fast option not the slow one. But somehow speed only matters if it's cars, but is best ignored if it's trains!

Yeah, try telling a 3 AM medical emergency

Do you not have ambulances where you live? Are you supposed to drive yourself with a major head injury?

For the love of YHVH, develop some actual reading comprehension. You completely misread section 5.1 of your own link. The report states that 76% of all DUI-involved vehicles were cars - not that 75% of car crashes involve DUIs. Cars make up 80%+ of all traffic on the road,

Cars don't make up 80% of the mode share, sure traffic because they're so inefficient, but not moving of people. That means there is a disporportionate amount of damage caused by car also. You've now gone from posting slop to just making up facts.

Maybe in the future try actually checking the data first before reaching your conclusion?

You literally posted numbers supporting my counter claim then say that means I'm wrong somehow? Are you on glue?

Are you fucking serious? Have you ever actually been friends with a disabled person,

This here is the absolutely most digusting thing about the car brained and their obsession with disabled people. To you they are just a prop, just a tool for your arguments. Literally every point I made has been taken DIRECTLY from the elderly and disabled family member I help around on a regular basis. Apparently he doesn't count because he doesn't support your narrative of how cars are just he best and necessary all the time for everything. You can fuck off frankly. I'm going to stop reading right here.

> Broadcast networks have to give the different major parties equal time.

The rule that this applies to late night talk shows is literally months old and has no basis in any new legislation. It was introduced by the FCC on a whim basically because they didn't want Colbert to interview the same person as Kimmel.