Facebook admits to scraping every Australian adult user’s public photos and posts

Where is the LLM that can reproduce specific whole copyrighted works on demand? All ive seen is reproductions of quotes of a few sentences (fair use) and hacks that can make it ocasionally vomit up random larger fragments of its training data, maybe up to a few paragraphs.

Theres also the Russian option: level the entire urban area to rubble with artillary.

Yep, its definitely not possible that nice small businesses like universal and sony would sue without an actual case in order to try and crush competitors with costs.

Estimates for chatgpt usage per query are on the order of 20-50 Wh, which is about the same as playing a demanding game on a gaming pc for a few minutes. Local models are significantly less.

The purpose of twitter like platforms is to have people to listen to and people to listen to you, so yes vastly lower user counts is a drawback.

Have you considered that maybe other people have different priorities, needs and desires to you, and that for people coming around to your point of view you should encourage them rather than castigate them for taking too long?

hmmm I wonder if that is considered in the thousands of words of this article…

It got more unpleasant after the blue-tick fiasco: identity verification became something you could buy, which destroyed the trust quotient. So I joined the rival platform Mastodon, but fast realised that I would never get 70,000 followers on there like I had on Twitter. It wasn’t that I wanted the attention per se, just that my gang wasn’t varied or noisy enough. There’s something eerie and a bit depressing about a social media feed that doesn’t refresh often enough, like walking into a shopping mall where half the shops have closed down and the rest are all selling the same thing.

You seem very insistent on interpreting millenia of history through the lense of an early 20th century political movement.

Yes there has likely always been an element of theatre and leaders exagerating their role in battles, but to claim that nobility/monarchs never came from warrior castes that were active in fighting flies in the face of huge amounts of scholarship. It hasnt been true in industrialised societies since the 18th century at least but that doesnt mean it never was.

There are, the authors estimate, 150 Russian remote nuclear launch sites and 70 in China, approximately 2,500km (1,550 miles) from the nearest border, all of which could be reached by US air-launched JASSM and Tomahawk cruise missiles in a little more than two hours in an initial attack designed to prevent nuclear weapons being launched.

Emphasis mine, I’m pretty sure even Russia can notice hundreds of cruise missiles are heading directly at their silos and figure out that this looks like an attack on their strategic nuclear arsenal in two whole hours, given that ICBMs take around a quarter of that from launch to impact.

Ask your calculator what 1-(1-1e-99) is and see if it never halucinates (confidently gives an incorrect answer) still.

Saying FTL is possible is equivalent to saying effects can proceed cause, the two statements saying the same thing from different frames of reference. You can demonstrate this with the Taychon pistol paradox (you could use a gun that fired FTL bullets to shoot yourself in the past).

Wormholes could avoid this but only if the mouths of the wormholes moved away from each other at slower than the speed of light.

You didnt address my point at all. I was saying that the outcome of Dave’s credibility method does not match up with the stated inputs to his method, showing that the whole thing is far more subjective than he wants to appear. Whether or not that subjective interpretation is reasonable in this case or not doesnt really interest me.

In a lot of cases I would agree with you, but laying fiber optic cable through the Amazon in order to connect remote settlements is not feasible, starlink really does have a good use case there.

Even taking all of this screed as true with no qualifications, does that in itself not show that the whole idea of pulling together a few sources about “credibility” and using an objective method to come up with an answer on how trustworthy something is as impossible? By the inputs MBFC list it should be a reasonable if not stellar source, yet they give it the lowest possible rating. Maybe that rating is justified maybe it isnt (I’ve never read anything of theirs) but given the inputs they have it is clear that the majority of the rating is based on the owner’s opinion not on the inputs they have.

Edit, on actually reading through what you wrote, it seems that the negatives are entirely about being critical of Isreal, is this by itself enough to make something not credible?

This is a perfect example of why MBFC is so bad. Mondoweiss has the same factual reporting status as presumably fine sources (the guardian is also mixed factual) it has transparent funding (far better than plenty of others) and comes from a country with mostly free press freedom (USA) and has medium traffic. Yet some how that comes out of the black box as low credibility, the only reason I can see for that is that Dave Van Zandt considers it too left wing.

deleted by creator

No, correctness is defined by usage. There is no high authority that lays down rules and you are wrong if you break them. 100 years ago you would have been considered incorrect if you asked “who am I speaking to?” rather than “To whom am I speaking?”. There wasnt a committee meeting some time in the 50s where it was decided to change the rules and depreciate cases in who/whom it just happened naturally and what is “correct” evolved.

Dictionaries themselves say that that they document how language is used rather than setting rules to follow, hence they now inculde a definition of literally as “not actually true but for emphasis”.

Further to this its not likely to result in less children being abused.

If you have the death penalty for even possessing CSAM as the parent suggests, then there is no incentive to not get into distribution or even actively abusing children and producing CSAM once you posess some. The punishment isnt any worse so why not? Its the same reason for proportionality in other crimes, we dont punish robbing a bank with life in jail as then there would be no reason for anyone who robs a bank to not just murder everyone to leave no witnessess.

This distinction was first tentatively suggested by the grammarian Robert Baker in 1770,[3][1] and it was eventually presented as a rule by many grammarians since then.[a] However, modern linguistics has shown that idiomatic past and current usage consists of the word less with both countable nouns and uncountable nouns so that the traditional rule for the use of the word fewer stands, but not the traditional rule for the use of the word less.[3] As Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of English Usage explains, "Less refers to quantity or amount among things that are measured and to number among things that are counted.”

“Correct” was a suggestion by someone which got over zealously picked up by grammarians despite in flying in the face of common usage. There is no acedemy of English to dictate that this rule change is the one true way of speaking and even if there was it would have about as much effect as the French one trying to suppress “le weekend”.