Only tangentially related, there was a "500-year" flood in my region a couple of years ago and a manager in my department who would shortly become the company president had his house flood. I volunteered to help with cleanup and ended up at his house tearing his basement, at one point 8' under water, down to the studs. His near-adult kids had small Lego collections that were basically in untouched condition except they had been under water. He told us to throw them out with everything else - it was not worth the complicated effort to do them and sort them out. But out of all the stuff it took us the most convincing to do so, the bricks weren't damaged at all.
That said, I'm surprised Lego survive outdoors. My understanding is that ABS is not UV-resistant.
There is no more succinct way to describe a Zionist than by using the word Zionist. To assume anyone who says "Zionist" means "Jew" is to make an unnecessary leap in bad faith.
* They had sold about half of the consigned inventory
* The old franchise owner said they had a job offer outside the country
* Said franchise owner was current on a restructured fee schedule that, they allege, was the direct result of corporate bungling the transfer of accounts from the franchise owner previous to them
I believe in this case the consignment contract requires the store to hold insurance on the consigned merchandise, which I assume is intended to address this concern.
Yeah, that extremely purple paragraph about how the blog was documenting that liminal period where humans worked together with AI as partners was embarrassing.
The same wiki article says there is a limit to the capacity of synthesis by UVB due to the quantity of reagent 7-dehydrocholesterol produced in the skin, but I don't know the math on what amount of exposure would be required to hit that limit - presumably it (or something like it) is covered in the article above.
I believe in A, I don't take a strong position on B, I am in coalition with people who believe in B and don't take a strong position on A, we both believe in C, D, E, and F, which some other people believe in with differing weights. Browbeating me about position B (or, the most useless kind of Internet banter, complaining about me and my hypocritical position on A+B to your friends who oppose both in a likewise contradictory way, in some venue I've never heard of) is not about making people reevaluate positions, it's about negative factionalism. The only reason it might not fit the familiar categorization of "fallacy" is that you would never use it in rational debate, either in arguing with another person or in reasoning out your own position.
Perhaps I can interest you in the Firefox Mobile option: put a blue pip on the three dot menu and the "What's New" item that will never go away until you click on it.
What you are describing is a legislation of the attitude of the average careless driver in the United States. I should be able to drive however I want until or unless I kill someone, the car should be the thing that keeps me from killing people, and anyone who doesn't use the roadway like me should be responsible for preventing me from killing them.
It's more complicated than that. KFX was not encrypted differently than AZW, it's just a proprietary format that no one else supports (AZW being more or less MOBI with some tweaks). The DRM and the format get conflated because the same enthusiasts who want to strip DRM tend to want ebooks in an archivable, portable, standard format that was not achievable with KFX (no other ebook readers care to implement the kind of features it supports, and the way it works is antithetical to coverting it to the more conventional formats). You could still download and strip DRM in versions of Kindle for PC that pulled the KFX format. Only recently did it get to the point that versions of the app supported by the DeDRM plugins weren't allowed to download new books.
I'm particularly fond of the senders who know there are nominally laws about spam, so they just label every piece of marketing and customer retention garbage as pertaining to your user account, or they layer some subscription-related language over a promotion al email. I uploaded photos to a printing service over a decade ago and long since unsubscribed from their marketing lists. Two months ago they started sending me bi-weekly "reminders" that my old photos would be purged soon but offering me a discount subscription to their cloud storage. They then sent me at least three weekly reminders. The thing is, none of the links in the email would send me to the page to download old information (which it turns out I had already done years ago, presumably on prompt of some other spam) or information on deleting that content myself.
The other classic of the genre is mailing list software that stores opt-out preferences separate of customer account data such that when they move to a different marketing service or their retention policy tolls out you start getting spam again, exactly 5 years after you opted out.
The whole point of contention is that one of the spaces is, effectively, the only convenient places to have a quick, heretofore private, conversation. No one is confused over where the things are.
My local county is currently in a dispute with the local bar association because they want to upgrade the courthouse security cameras and the sheriff wants to add audio capabilities. This includes to parts of the building just outside the courtroom that counsel will frequently use for brief asides with their clients (due to lack of other private rooms). The county seems to favor adding the microphones and pinky swearing they won't use them and that public records requests won't be used to listen in on privileged communication, but it's obvious how difficult that would be to trust. They keep putting off a decision because they don't want to piss off the lawyers.
The premise of the quote does not contain the assumption that there is no copyright to the code. In fact the various contributors do not advance an opinion about whether code written by an AI can be granted copyright. Rather they are saying that it is obviously derivative of code that is under copyright, that is only distributed under terms which, however many dry cleaners process it, will still conflict with the license under which they publish their software.
Did anyone seriously believe this was the AI's fault? The modern military use of LLMs is very clearly for the purpose of creating vaguely plausible targets while distancing any person from the decision to murder people. Surely if we cared at all about accomplishing a strategic goal we would have had a set of well documented targets ready to go. Instead the goal seems to be to drop as many bombs as possible, hope the computer's good enough that they mostly hit people who have relevance to things we don't like, and loudly proclaim that it's more important to kill people than it is to have any goal at all.
This all relies, as the article points out, on everyone looking directly at code that both looks like and works like the only extant codebase for EXT4 and nonetheless concluding that in fact the computer conjured it from the aether. If I wrote a program that zipped up the Linux kernel source, unzipped it, and grepped -v for comments it would not then be magically transformed into unattributable public domain software.
It says they will not comply with whatever registration is required. It does not say specifically what they will do, in part I assume because they had not been given enough specifics (for example if it remains possible to sideload but not to be in a third party app store, would they continue to develop with that diminished accessibility?). Additionally YouTube itself has been making some system changes that, outside NewPipe's control, may make it functionally impossible to use the service without being logged into a Google account, so they may be suggesting that they think the writing is on the wall for them.
In this example we still don't require you to register with anyone to buy a knife, get the blessing of some institution to sell knives, or, as in this case, get a certification before you can start making knives.
Back in maybe 2017 there was a YC startup called Audm that hired professional audiobook narrators to read magazine articles. I found them through their embeds in The New Yorker. The app was pretty mediocre and I wanted to use it in my podcast app, so I started writing a scraper. Very quickly I realized that the page embeds were making calls directly to their production database with no authentication whatsoever. So I pivoted to dumping the entire archive, hosting it on my LAN, and serving it as RSS over my VPN. It was cool, and I found that articles from some publications would post as much as 2 weeks before publication. Eventually they were bought by the NYTimes, and in 2020 they either set up permissions or moved the infrastructure. I gave up on the project, and I understand that most of the content is no longer available. I unfortunately lost my archive with a lot of data when my storage array died a couple of years later. I think the product space got commoditized very quickly by AI readers (none of which, to my ear, are as engaging as the human professionals). I think maybe 4 other people knew about my project when it existed.