That's a bit arbitrary though, isn't it? I mean, are newborn babies really people? The Romans didn't think so. I don't see the big philosophical difference. They can't earn money or pay taxes, and are 100% dependent on parental care and resources.
And how about sleeping people? I mean they're unaware of their surroundings. Are sleeping people real people? Sure, they'll inevitably wake up in a few hours, if nothing goes wrong. Same as how a fetus will inevitably develop into an adult and be fully conscious, if nothing goes wrong.
> Same as how a fetus will inevitably develop into an adult and be fully conscious, if nothing goes wrong.
Unless it dies in pain and suffering hours, days, months or a few years after birth due to a defect that we already know can never be cured or fixed by other means. Somehow societies that are least interested or capable in providing any aid to these traumatized families revel the most in their suffering.
We have cookie alerts because the world's largest browser, which is created and run by the world's largest advertising agency, has no incentive to make it easier for you to stop the flow of data you're sending them that's making them so much money.
Google was very new when the EU proposed these laws in 2000. It certainly didn't have a browser.
I think the privacy provisions and disclosures required under GDPR give users more useful information (ie they now actually need a privacy policy), and Cookie popups are just a silly distraction that offer no further value. We open so many web pages, so quickly these days, most users are not making informed rational decisions about the popup - they're just clicking it to make it go away. They both annoy users and give them a false sense of improved privacy protection.
The blocking of third party cookies by browsers, and proper privacy disclosures are a much better solution.
> The blocking of third party cookies by browsers (is) a much better solution.
Exactly! And why is that not being implemented? Because Chrome is top dog and they're earning a lot of money with your data, so WHY would they want to stop that data flow? Everything that would make it easier for you to protect your data would lose them money, so they have no incentive to do that.
Instead, we are stuck with these annoying cookie banners, which are easily and wrongfully blamed on the EU instead of on the website owners and the browser vendors.
How do you even do that? Zoomed out it looks like a nearly photorealistic street scene, zoomed in I just see seemingly meaningless patterns of black and white. Magic. Unbelievable.
There's a few - including that one - that look like they're photos pulled through a transformation code. I'm probably wrong though - dithering seems to be incredibly difficult to get right, see e.g. https://forums.tigsource.com/index.php?topic=40832.msg136374...
This image in particular made me wonder if there was some type of tracing aid involved. Maybe the dutch-looking street reminded me of Vermeer's method. I wonder what input device they were using? I was using a pretty nice input surface for doing CAD work sometime around 1990-93 on a PC, and we had occasion to lay transparencies on top and trace on them. I don't know if Macs 5 years before that had this type of peripheral. And anyway, there were certainly some special artists I knew of back then who could do this with a mouse and enough time.
Definitely not a Dutch street. More likely a German, Austrian/Swiss, or Alsatian (France) one. Those kind of half-timbered houses are extremely uncommon in the Netherlands.
Dithering, for one. The parent also suggests pointillism, which was also a popular modern art technique for making detailed portraits using small, low-detail components.
We don't know what it was trained on, do we? (Is there dataset info?) I'd suspect you're right, but I don't know. There also seems to be a lot of post-training processing done on AIs before they're released where a lot of bias can appear. I've never read a good overview about how someone goes from a LLM trained on data to a consumer-focusing LLM.
The article also leads into what oversight and regulation is needed, and how we can expect AIs to be used for propaganda and influence in future. I worry that what we're seeing with Grok, where it's so easily identifiable, are the baby steps to worse and less easily identifiable propaganda in future.
I remember "Halbgefrorenes"[1] as one of the main source of income for many restaurants and Cafés in the former DDR(GDR). Second recipe to generate nearly unlimited profit was Soljanka[2].
Like other products in this category, this is for private networks, internal to your company or self. I don't think it's an intended use case to connect to computers not in your control.
It's useful when you have computers that talk to each other over the internet, likely without public interfaces, and using protocols that may or may not be secure.
This is exactly that by thought was. This solves nothing what the traditional VPN or TOR is used for. It's like running an exit node from your hope IP address. You do not want to do that.
can't quite figure out exactly the ins and outs but it seems to masquerade as wireguard. which would make VPNs redundant as it would itself be a VPN.
this would mean, for instance, torrents that are wireguarded between peers by default. sure you will see tons of IPs connected via wireguard but who is going to bother intercepting them?
