Comment Re:Coming soon off the back of this (Score 1) 101
A six digit UID is not one that could be remotely considered "old".
He's basically a newborn
A six digit UID is not one that could be remotely considered "old".
He's basically a newborn
You could watch linear format TV until your eyeballs fell out, too.
Yes, but there is an important difference: TV had to appeal to an average audience member. Meanwhile the social media algorithms are intentionally working against you, trying to specifically find and use your triggers.
That's quite a different intent there.
parents forgot they're supposed to be the ones making sure their kids aren't getting "addicted" to things.
On the TV, parents could also check the program for what they thought was suitable for their kid or not. They could watch the same program, even if not in the same room. Social media is a lot more personal and a lot harder to track and filter.
(almost nothing makes money after that)
Hard disagree.
Not everything is subject to hype cycles. A lot of especially the SMALLER musicians, for example, basically live off their back catalog. I routinely buy the entire collection of artists that I freshly discover and fall in love with. And I totally feel that it is right that I pay them for music they made, no matter when they made it.
What is an abomination is copyright terms of DEATH + 70 years. Or whatever Disney pushed it to by now. I'm ok with inheritance of creative work, but it should not put the children into "never have to work in their entire life" territory.
Then again, there are two aspects: Creative control and money. I think that the Tolkien estate did a generally good job of protecting the integrity of JRR's works. Well, if we ignore Rings of Power, I have no idea what lies Amazon told them to get the approval for that shitshow.
And let's not forget that coypright law is also what protects GPL software.
Will there be an AI-optimized programming language at the expense of human readability?
Why? We already have machine code. What could an "AI-optimized programming language" do that neither machine code nor current programming languages already do?
"Could we get our AIs to go straight from prompt to an intermediate language that could be fed into the interpreter or compiler of our choice?
Uh, you can do that today. That "intermediate language" is any programming language that has enough stuff on the Internet that the LLMs have trained them.
Now whether or not that's a good idea or a recipe for desaster is an ongoing discussion. As a security professional, my take is simple: Thank you AI, my job is secure until I retire. Just when technical solutions like W^X or Rust's memory ownership to list just two of dozens, were eliminating entire classes of vulnerabilities.
The best part? I don't even need to learn anything new. AI has trained on insecure code, example code, "why does this not work" Stackoverflow questions and a whole lot of other stuff full of bugs and vulns. They're all showing up again in vibe coded slop.
Oh that part is really easy: Stop giving billions to AI startups.
Right now, the whole AI bubble is heavily subsidized by investor cash. Once the AI companies have to charge users the actual cost plus a profit margin, we'll see AI usage drop considerably. Because that shit ain't cheap.
does that mean the profits from his last scam are over, he needs a new job and has decided that honest work still is something for peasants?
or simply replicated from scratch
Next week in these news: Companies who went to $random_startup_of_the_month found out that they now bought into being at the START of a five-year crusade to eliminate bugs, performance issues and usability problems.
Where are the power plants for these?
That is the problem. "Right to read" was visionary and will really soon be reality.
Given how much capitalism insists on copyright and prosecution when it comes to THEIR works, how they get custom-made laws like the DMCA passed just to protect their rights... well, let's just say that if the big AI models weren't from the corporate sector but had been created by nerds on github, the copyright police would already have broken down our doors to arrest us all for copyright infringement.
So please, please, pretty please, let them have a dose of their own medicine. Heck, let the courts classify LLMs as "software" and find just one instance of the training data containing GPL3 content. Whoopsie, all your code belongs to us.
If you want to stay anonymous, who am I to uncover you to the public, for a few clicks and a pat on the shoulders?
If anything, we need to fight for our rights to remain anonymous. Online, offline, anywhere. The most massive clue that we need anonymity should be the zeal with which politicians and powerful corporations try again and again and again to force us into using real names online, make everything trackable, and pierce any pseudonymity or privacy layers. These fuckers never, ever, have our interest in mind, and constantly lie to us about what their real reasons are (seriously, in countries where laws can be made by public vote, we should pass laws that any politician saying "because of the children" is put into jail for a year).
Don't just let Banksy remain anonymous - let us all be anonymous whenever we want.
Someone else will calculate more digits soon enough.
Really soon now, we'll figure out that the entire purpose of Earth was always to calculate Pi. Douglas Adams was right, he just lied about the actual number.
Except the NIH didn't actually do a real study and based everything off of "Results from a Cross-Sectional Online Survey" - which is essentially useless.
Someone get this one a soft chair to drop into and explain how many real studies are based on surveys.
Loot boxes do not cause gambling addition. People susceptible to gambling addiction (or just addictions in general), or those with mental health issues, are more likely to gamble with loot boxes (or anything else).
Susceptible people are exactly who need protection.
We don't make scams legal because people could just be more careful, do we?
This is pure passive aggressive grey beard Linux snobbery masquerading as thoughtful commentary
Apple is bsd Unix and has a complete set of Unix tools. Apple knows there customers needs probably better than any maker and you never were going to be one.
The whole point of this is it's inexpensive. Ic you desire more power it's not for you
If the math is correct, that means we can calculate the circumference of the known universe to a precision much, much smaller than the Plank length.
So in other words: No, there isn't any practical application for this, not now, not in the forseable future, and probably not before the heat death of the universe.
There is nothing interesting or particularly addictive about opening loot boxes themselves.
recent studies beg to differ.
These and others show a strong correlation between lootboxes and problematic gambling i.e. gambling addiction.
Only God can make random selections.