If AI services are becoming too expensive in the current environment, we can look to nature for help. There is a an abundant species of large mammals in the ape family that can be trained to do this kind of work as well.

They won't be involuntarily celibate. In fact part of the point is that they - in sheer numbers - cuck the existing, fertile male population.

Now.. if you'd made a joke about there being so many of them running a train on the unsuspecting females and maybe mentioned your mom, that might've been funny, if only speculatively more accurate.

... so the person you send it to can eat 20% of their battery life to inaccurately summarize it back into one sentence?

What a funny thing to say about something that is literally all text. Match up the code itself with the commit message and the ticket that caused it to happen - we work in the most documented business there is.

If you don't force/write good commit messages then you get what you deserve.

If you don't force/use good issue tracking then you get what you deserve.

In general, AI now composes my commit messages. Then I delete 2/3 of it. Sometimes I'll touch it up a bit. So it is helping our process...

For every line of code in our repo I know who wrote it, when they wrote it, what they said about writing it, and why they started to write it in the first place. If you don't know those things then you (or your organization) are doing it wrong.

To be fair, nobody ever should think "we lost the election so everything the winners do should be accept unopposed no matter how much harm it does." As long as the opposition means are legal, they shouldn't be scoffed at. Some are deliberate checks and balances against abuse by the elected. On-topic, why datacenters - which contribute nothing but tax money to a community - should be enticed with... a tax break is questionable at best. It's almost like building a landfill solely to accept someone else's waste at a discount under the rate your own waste costs to dispose of. Vacant land won't remain vacant forever.

How about recognizing that (many) people will do enjoyable things even if they have long-term negative consequences?

And no, it's not good that a journalist was able to track her down using it. Or at least, regulations that prevent police from using it should also prevent them from using it by proxy via some third party. The facial recognition should be thrown out as inadmissible in court.

I agree that just labeling the AI-generated stuff *should* be enough, but I wonder if it really is enough. Yesterday someone sent me a video of Brian Cox describing some concept. Right in the text of the original post it said, "This video features an AI-generated voice for storytelling and educational purposes. It is not the real Brian Cox." So, fully disclosed, but it didn't stop people from forwarding it.

When I complained, the person who sent it to me said that the idea's interesting regardless of where it came from. Is it, though? Would you have bothered watching it if it was some unknown talking head with an anonymous AI voice? The presentation matters. The video used Brian Cox because he's smart, personable, and has a history of explaining difficult physics concepts in a manner most people can understand. People generally trust him in his area of expertise. Using his likeness in something he had nothing to do with is simply a dishonest way to ride his coattails, even if you do add a caption saying, "Not really Brian Cox". It's the academic world's version of stolen valor.

So in principle, I agree. Just marking something as AI-generated should be enough. In practice I fear it's going to be an asterisk and fine print so small people won't notice it, and even if they do the realism will trick their hindbrains into letting their guard down because it appears to be someone they trust.

There needs to be a word for "the fear of making a typo while insulting someone online." There probably already is one in German.

Coordinated Information Apparatus Battlefield Earth

For all we know, what looks to you like a one-day delay is actually a three-month delay, they just had a different launch scheduled the next day.

No. Launching a rocket is not like launching a plane. You have to get it to the platform and set it all up. You have to register with the feds. It's a whole thing. And here (well, at Vandenberg) there is just one SpaceX platform at the moment. I think they are talking about building another.

Launches slip *all the time*. I live about 50 miles from Vandenberg, so I keep an eye on when they go up to see if there's gonna be a good view. My guess is that about 25% of them slip - and when they do, mostly it's a 1 day slip.

So slipping to the next day can't be a big deal. Especially if you're planning it ahead of time. Unless you're pushing up against the next launch - which would be unusual.

Yes, there are windows for some satellites. But I think they are roughly daily with these.

That you included the word at all is what makes you a racist.

If you want to have a discussion about if First Nations people should have special treatment, that's a path to constructive discourse. But just throwing out sarcastic hyperbole when nobody else in the thread has is revelatory. And you know it. It's why you did it.

Good job dodging the entirety of my reply with a red herring.

So... a couple things that might be useful to re-align your head with reality.

Most on-topic, this isn't about indigenous content, and it's a bit of a red-flag that you think it is and that you'd think it problematic if it were. The sarcastic "holy" also strongly outs you as a racist. Just in case you weren't intending to broadcast that, you are. This is about Canadian content. That varies from things like Letterkenny to This Hour Has Tweny-Two Minutes. Yes, Canadian productions can and should include indigenous performers, crew, and topics as part of our culture just as it includes French-Canadian content and Newfies. But CanCon does not mean IndigiCon.

Second, I'm not aware of anyone claiming mass graves of indigenous people in the usual sense. While I'm not super-fluent on the topic because it's grim as fuck, it's about graves, period. These kids were taken from their parents to be raised in religious indoctrination schools and some of them died there. Not necessarily because of abuse or intent to kill, but their bodies were never returned to their families is - as I understand it - a big sticking point. Nobody is claiming this is like the Holocaust with outright mass murder and disposal. It's individual neglect and abuse because of racial hatred. When a grave with "X bodies" is found, the horror isn't that X kids were offed and chucked in a hole at the same time, as I understand it. It's "oh, look, we found another graveyard with X kids that were stolen from their families and died away from home. Again."

Don't care. This both-sides stuff doesn't help anyone. There is a difference between the two sides.

Fiscally, yeah, power-seekers of every description are going to be looking to profit from you. Granted. Corporations are in charge at that level. But first you stomp out the fascist right. Then you keep on voting in the least-evil. Again and again and again. Change what you can instead of worrying about what you can't.