Basically a deer with a human face. Despite probably being some sort of magical nature spirit, his interests are primarily in technology and politics and science fiction.
Spent many years on Reddit before joining the Threadiverse as well.
You may know IPv6 is ridiculously bigger, but you don’t know it.
There are enough IPv6 addresses that you could give 10^17 addresses to every square millimeter of Earth’s surface. Or 5×10^28 addresses for every living human being. On a more cosmic scale, you could issue 4×10^15 addresses to every star in the observable universe.
We’re not going to run out by giving them to lightbulbs.
Yeah, one-hole boats seem like it’d take away what little “strategy” there is in this game. It’s pure randomness whether you hit one, and as soon as you hit it it’s over.
Is it necromancy if the subject is still alive?
I sometimes steal pieces of it, if only for inspiration, but I love worldbuilding and making up my own settings.
I’m currently running an adventure in a Spelljammer setting where most of the previous D&D campaigns I’ve run over the years exist on different planets, with elements of all of them now able to make cameos or interact with each other. It’s wild.
Except it’s not denying service, so it’s just a D.
If this isn’t a military battle then that makes Israel’s actions look even worse.
They were triggered indiscriminately. Israel had no way of knowing who was holding each pager or where it was located when it went off.
It’s complicated, but this might be considered a war crime. A key quote from the article:
A booby trap is defined as “any device designed or adapted to kill or injure, and which functions unexpectedly when a person disturbs or approaches an apparently harmless object,” according to Article 7 of a 1996 adaptation of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, which Israel has adopted. The protocol prohibits booby traps “or other devices in the form of apparently harmless portable objects which are specifically designed and constructed to contain explosive material.”
The prohibition is presumably intended to make it less likely that a civilian or other uninvolved person will get injured or killed by one of these seemingly harmless objects. If you’re booby-trapping military equipment or military facilities then that’s not a problem, civilians wouldn’t be using those.
Not in every way. They’re cheaper and faster.
No, it’s opt-in. If you do nothing you won’t have it.
They’re not “pushing their Recall shit whether we like it or not”, they’re explicitly making it opt-in. They gave a fuck about their users’ complaints and made a bunch of modifications to it.
You may still not like it, but give them some credit.
That’s not what they’re arguing, not even close.
And unfortunately, this article is also just a response to media clickbait, not a discussion point it tries to look like
And becomes new clickbait in the process.
I should note, there are cryptocurrencies that also don’t use proof of work. Ethereum, the second-largest, switched away from proof of work two and a half years ago.
not some fucking investors and shareholders that probably kept pressuring CS for the last several years to reduce costs and increase revenue,
This is presumably part of what would be at issue in court. The shareholders are claiming they were lied to. We’ll see how that holds up.
CrowdStrike (CRWD.O), has been sued by shareholders who said the cybersecurity company defrauded them by concealing how its inadequate software testing could cause the July 19 global outage that crashed more than 8 million computers.
In a proposed class action filed on Tuesday night in the Austin, Texas federal court, shareholders said they learned that CrowdStrike’s assurances about its technology were materially false and misleading when a flawed software update disrupted airlines, banks, hospitals and emergency lines around the world.
Basically, the company advertised itself as being one way to the shareholders, they bought in on that basis, and then it turned out they were misrepresenting themselves. Presumably they’re suing the company and not the executives personally because that’s where the money is.
Note that simply owning the shares doesn’t mean that it’s already “their money.” If I buy a share in a company I can’t walk up to it and demand that they give me a portion of the cash from the register. It’s more complicated than that and lawsuits like this are part of that complexity.
That would depend entirely on why OpenAI might go under. The linked article is very sparse on details, but it says:
These expenses alone stack miles ahead of its rivals’ expenditure predictions for 2024.
Which suggests this is likely an OpenAI problem and not an AI in general problem. If OpenAI goes under the rest of the market may actually surge as they devour OpenAI’s abandoned market share.
AI engineers are not a unitary group with opinions all aligned. Some of them really like money too. Or just want to build something that changes the world.
I don’t know of a specific “when” where a bunch of engineers left OpenAI all at once. I’ve just seen a lot of articles over the past year with some variation of “<company> is a startup founded by former OpenAI engineers.” There might have been a surge when Altman was briefly ousted, but that was brief enough that I wouldn’t expect a visible spike on the graph.
We are talking specifically about OpenAI, though.
Well, my point is that it’s already largely irrelevant what they do. Many of their talented engineers have moved on to other companies, some new startups and some already-established ones. The interesting new models and products are not being produced by OpenAI so much any more.
I wouldn’t be surprised if “safety alignment” is one of the reasons, too. There are a lot of folks in tech who really just want to build neat things and it feels oppressive to be in a company that’s likely to lock away the things they build if they turn out to be too neat.
Ah, so that’s what those two swellings on her chest are.