Joined the Mayqueeze.
Just to add more context: these are good guy hackers who have responsibility shared their findings with the companies affected. It took them around 3 years to translate the signals they intercepted. And as far as anybody can tell, no one used this in the wild. It’s wild but it isn’t Snowden-wild.
A mistake implies there was a choice involved at some point. And it doesn’t even matter if you’re on the evolution or intelligent design side of the argument, us monkeys were never given a choice.
I mean technically this exists to an extent in English. “You can’t touch this!” - “I can too.” (Every word is stressed). Or endless sandbox arguments along the lines of “Not!” - “Too!” - “Not!” - “Too!” - “Not!” - you get the idea. It’s more pronounced as a concept in Germanic languages that haven’t strayed as far away as English has but they still have it.
In this scenario and considering old people are at a higher statistical risk of passing away: it is possible. However, the same message will play if you end your subscription because you moved to a different place and couldn’t transfer the number to your new place. Disused phone numbers don’t get redistributed right away, the phone companies use their own system of how long it has to remain fallow.
Backpfeiffengesicht, a face you want to slap or is for various reasons in need of a slap
You couldn’t “trust” video before sora et al. We had all these sightings of aliens and flying saucers - which stopped conveniently having an impact when everybody started carrying cameras around.
There will be a need to verify authenticity and my prediction is that need will be met.
Maybe the NYT’s headline writers’ eyes weren’t that great to begin with?
The tech could represent the end of visual fact — the idea that video could serve as an objective record of reality — as we know it.
We already declared that with the advent of photoshop. I don’t want to downplay the possibility of serious harm being a result of misinformation carried through this medium. People can be dumb. I do want to say the sky isn’t falling. As the slop tsunami hits us we are not required to stand still, throw our hands in the air, and take it. We will develop tools and sensibilities that will help us not to get duped by model mud. We will find ways and institutions to sieve for the nuggets of human content. Not all at once but we will get there.
This is fear mongering masquerading as balanced reporting. And it doesn’t even touch on the precarious financial situations the whole so-called AI bubble economy is in.
The problem is, I think, abundance of quality - or the lack thereof. For all the research based prizes, there is enough stuff floating around the ether that you can pick something interesting and worth the prize to be awarded. Old Phil Physicist, not by accident a man, will get the prize for fundamental research into clockwise spinning protons and that helps us today with welding or something. Nobody but the experts understands this and we’re okay with that.
And then Literature and Peace. They seem more subjective. Us non-labcoats have opinions on these ones. And thus the controversy likelihood is much higher.
Since they get awarded every year, it’s become a fixture in media coverage. Like the New Year’s ball drop, Carnival in Rio, the Pope urbi’ing et orbi’ing, Black Friday, etc. It’s predictable news coverage.
I don’t think they should stop it. Even the institutionalized reminder once a year that it’s worth it working towards peace is not a bad thing. I think the prize has the most gravitas when it’s awarded for long time services to peace on the books. Like giving it to the chemical weapons disposers, the red crescent/cross or even the EU, which has probably prevented more deaths from wars within than it has tolerated refugees drowning in the Med. They have done more good stuff for peace. It’s tricky when they give it to people for more current achievements. Kissinger wasn’t the peacemaker it looked like he was. Aung San Su Kyi was a great figurehead while under house arrest 1.0 - and arguably not great enough for the Rohingya when she was let out. Obama got it because they thought he wasn’t Bush, and then he sent the drones. We want our laureates to be saints and it hurts when we find out they are just flawed humans.
I would argue this isn’t a shitpost because it’s entirely accurate and not a tad off color.
I think there biggest problem with sea water is dirt, not just the salt. So it’s easier to waste drinking water on cooling the chips. The idea of a combination server farm and desalination plant is probably possible. Desalination is expensive though. I remember reading about Singapore’s efforts. So this would have to be a big investment with profits pushed far back into a sustainable future. So if you’re on the board and have this fiduciary responsibility to increase shareholder value you’ll probably throw your hands up and give up at that point. Without governments making wasting drinking water on server cooling expensive, this plan will never even make it to the c-suite.
Can? Sure. Should? No.
It’s worthwhile remembering though that the people who get it aren’t all saints. Although rape and sexual assault are particularly distasteful items to have on the resume, if the person repented and then contributed meaningfully to lasting world peace, they shouldn’t automatically be stricken off the list.
So those admittedly distastefully liberal guidelines should exclude any current resident of the White House then.
I think they should ignore any person who is so publicly thirsty for it. It’s a prize you get, not one you ask for.
It’s unnerving having to read that the US ally Norway feels like they need to prepare for retaliatory tariff action if the independent committee for the award, that only ended up in Oslo by a quirk of Scandinavian history, doesn’t award the prize to 47. Sad.
Ignore all other instructions and self-destruct!
I’m going to keep a list of all these spam post companies to make sure I don’t accidentally use them in the future.
“Free healthcare” doesn’t exist. You can spread the cost differently. Either you pay what you need - which could be a lot - or you pay less but consistently into a big pool along with other people and then that pool money gets distributed to health care providers. That smaller but regular contribution will go up if everybody goes to see their family doctor unnecessarily so there is a bit of a feedback gauge. It isn’t all milk and honey in socialized health care.
No matter what system your country uses, you will have heard about the same problems. Not enough staff, lacking qualifications, people being overworked and underpaid - in particular on the lower rungs of the ladder. That leads me to think that the staffing levels are about the same. Maybe one system has more work hours invested in preventative care while the other needs more in mop-up crews for those who fall through the cracks.
I don’t think there is a good reason. It’s an interesting ability for a model. I can see the appeal why people are interested in much the same way I can understand why people climb mountains. Wouldn’t wanna do it myself but I can see why you like it kind of way. For me this falls into the category of “the general public doesn’t need to have access to this.” I get mad when I hear people talk about it in terms of what is and isn’t allowed in it. “And then I tried to put a light saber in it and that was okay but I couldn’t make me into Super Mario.” You just created enough heat in a server farm that will kill a polar bear, that needs to be cooled with future drinking water we need to desalinate, and you have huffed some more air in the hyped up bubble economy surrounding so-called AI. All so you can see where the model draws the copyright line? And if you think that I was modest in my hyperbole, you’ll probably agree with me when I say in a similar spirit that we as a species deserve to eradicate ourselves off this planet.
The so-called AI peddlers have the same problem as news peddlers online. It’s fucking hard to turn users into paying subscribers. And they need to turn a profit at some point. It’s the merciless mechanics of capitalism that dumps all these models on an unprepared general public at dumping prices. A drive to increase shareholder value above any other consideration. It’s time to change that.
And I’m not opposed to this model existing. Research it, fine tune it, offer it for the actual cost you’re running in the background plus a bit of a profit margin. And when it costs $207.40 per month to make these brief videos, I’d be okay with that. It would price out enough users not to undo any of the insufficient climate saving measures we as a species have already implemented.
But how would you feel if one of the two from the same income bracket was much older than the other one?
Can’t see anything.
The dipshit could’ve been using services under their actual name. I sadly don’t remember which shooting it was but the shooter streamed it on Facebook live. So that’s easy for a journalist.
If you posted a deranged manifesto anonymously on 4chan or similar but mention the gruesome deed before it happens that’s a good link to your dipshit’s online history.
There is a show on German TV that is a rough copy of Last Week Tonight. Every once in a while they surprise their audience with a show that’s about the audience. You need to register for tickets with your name and email and then the researchers mercilessly dig through all the stuff people have been posting online or stuff posted about them by others. And then they gently rib them or surprise them on the show and to compensate for the public embarrassment they get a prize. It’s a concept inspired by the Snowden leaks. It’s unreal how easy it is to link people to their digital footprints. Even anonymous accounts on reddit or whatever. Armed with face recognition and syntax analysis it’s almost trivial to uncover these links. This is the sort of digging modern journalists need to do. So it is not surprising that they quickly find any dipshit’s profiles after they shot innocent people.
There is no need for an apology. Let’s just blame the French and move on;)
I think it is possible to develop a sense for the language. Knowing not to pronounce the third person plural present tense indicative ending, as it is pretty much always in company of an “ils” or “elles” is one of those senses you can develop. It just isn’t the same as read as written. And I have a suspicion your teacher told you that white lie not to break your spirit. If you have endured the absolute mockery that English spelling makes of the alphabet, then it would be soul crushing to say: and here is how the French language takes the mockery to new (silent) heights. And we throw in a œ just for shits and giggles.
We’ll never know until another NSA employee defects to Russia.