ignirtoq

That’s the easy question: yes. The hard questions are “when?” and “how can we effectively get ready given the lack of political will?”

It’s a mathematical property of regions of a 2D space that 3 will naturally meet at a point, but 4 or higher have to be contrived to meet at a point. In the US we do have the 4 corners, which is where Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, and Utah, so there is precedent.

Wormholes modeled with mainstream physics are incredibly unstable, to the point that they collapse before even a single particle is able to traverse them. Proposals for ways to stabilize a wormhole rely on models that have not yet been confirmed by experiment. So any answer you get is going to be little more than conjecture, and I don’t think you can get the scientific rigor it sounds like you’re looking for.

It was a joke.

Exactly. Ever skip a stone on the surface of a lake? It’s like that, except it’s a continuous skip, with air instead of water, and you’re inside the stone.

Missing New Zealand?

It’s an education system and culture problem. You can’t force a 40-year-old woman to be curious and critical, but you can plant the seed and encourage the growth of those skills and behaviors in children. That confusion at hearing something different followed by the attitude of putting it in a box and dismissing it (“I don’t know what that is, but we have regular hot tea”) comes from a lifetime of being told to accept whatever over simplified answer they are told and be quiet whenever they ask questions.

Hmm, these numbers seem very low. I wonder how these scores were determined.

They weren’t, because LLMs don’t have reasoning ability, at least not in the way you as a human do. They are generative models, so the short answer is the model most likely made the numbers up, though there’s a chance they pulled them directly from some training data that’s likely completely unrelated to the user’s prompt.

What they generate is supposed to have similar multidimensional correlation as the input data, so there are complex relationships between what the question asked and the output it gave, but these processes don’t look anything like the steps you would go through to answer the same question.

No chance it will even come to the floor for a vote.

I don’t think that follows, because those are temporary conditions, and consuming the drug is a choice made by an individual not currently under the influence. So it’s the person’s responsibility before they consume the drug to prepare their environment for when they are under the influence. If they’re so destructive under the influence that they can’t not commit a crime, it is their responsibility not to take the drug at all.

Been the only one in my family for years using Linux, but over the last few months struggles with Windows have basically resulted in all but one computer in the house being migrated to Linux.

Put it on my 10-year-old son’s desktop because Windows parental controls have been made overly complicated and require Internet connectivity and multiple Microsoft accounts to manage. Switched to Linux Mint, installed the apt sources for the parental control programs, made myself an account with permissions and one for him without permissions to change the parental controls, and done. With Steam he can play all of the games in his library.

Only my wife is still using Windows, but with ads embedded in the OS ramping up, and features she liked getting replaced with worse ones, she’s getting increasingly frustrated with Microsoft.

I don’t think that word is required. If anything, I think

sometimes you come and pull the lever

sounds more natural, if you have to add a word. They’re speaking more colloquially, rather than formally, but I don’t think the original is grammatically incorrect.

I’ve read it 3 times, and I can’t find a missing word. It makes sense to me. What word is missing?

No, they would respond exactly the way they already are responding. They would claim climate transition as a concept was made up by liberals, they would deny such a thing is possible, let alone happening, and they would enact policies in states they control to limit speech about it and punish people whose professions have to deal with it. You know, like they’re doing in Florida to doctors and teachers about LGBTQ+ and to scientists about the climate.

Democratic candidates have raised far more than Republicans and can purchase ads at the cheaper rate offered to candidates. Republicans rely more heavily on independent expenditures from their campaign arm and allied super PACs, which have to pay much more per ad.

Gee, it’s almost like Republicans aren’t favored by a large proportion of the population who can donate up to the ~$3,300 federal limit directly to campaigns and have to rely on their wealthy benefactors donating much, much more per capita through side channels that shouldn’t even exist in a functional democracy.

How would you scientifically measure a difference between those two definitions?

plus why the right keeps mispronouncing her name

I mean, it’s just racism, right?

It serves as a racist dog whistle and a cowardly way to slight the vice president without resorting to overt name-calling.

Yeah, same as always. Important to keep pointing it out, but not exactly an earth-shattering revelation.

I don’t see how this wouldn’t be derivative work. I highly doubt a robust, commercial software solution using AI-generated code would not have modified that code. I use AI to generate boilerplate code for my side projects, and it’s exceedingly rare that its product is 100% correct. Since that generated code is not copyrightable, it’s public domain, and now I’m creating a derived work from it, so that derived work is mine.

As AI gets better at generating code and we can directly use it without modification, this may become an issue. Or maybe not. Maybe once the AI is that good, you no longer have software companies, since you can just generate the code you need, so software development as a business becomes obsolete, like the old human profession of “computer.”

This makes sense to me, and is in line with recent interpretations about AI-generated artwork. Basically, if a human directly creates something, it’s protected by copyright. But if someone makes a thing that itself creates something, that secondary work is not protected by copyright. AI-generated artwork is an extreme example of this, but if that’s the framework, applying it to data newly generated by any code seems reasonable.

This wouldn’t/shouldn’t apply to something like compression, where you start with a work directly created by someone, apply an algorithm to transform it into a compressed state, and then apply another algorithm to transform the data back into the original work. That original work was still created by someone and so should be protected by copyright. But a novel generation of data, like the game state in memory during the execution of the game’s programming, was never directly created by someone, and so isn’t protected.

If it’s dangerous to repair it, it’s dangerous to own. That’s the domain for regulations by the government, not arbitrary software restrictions by software manufacturers.

They don’t implement these to keep you safe. They do it purely to make more money.