My favorite implication of these kinds of posts is that windows somehow doesn’t ever have driver issues.

Guys selling something claim it will make you taller and thinner, your dick bigger, your mother in law stop calling, and work as advertised.

Honestly AAA studios don’t even exist anymore. Is there any gaming studio making multipe $60 games per year you can name where you would vouch for the quality of their games solely on the basis of who made it?

Maybe some first party console games(and even then only some series), but nothing for PC.

No.

Special thanks to Microsoft for going out of their way to help make this possible

This is hardly a new thing for MS. One of the first emails I remember getting when I got to college back in 2003 was from campus IT begging people not to install the latest XP update because it reenabled a vulnerability to existing malware.

My kingdom for the return of the rear fingerprint sensor.

I expect they will not be worth it as they’re too underpowered for your specific use case. (I’m assuming your use case is hosting complex physical similations for a major university physics department and the old computer you’re considering on Amazon is a used version of this one or something similar.)

For my home server I use whatever old PC I have laying around already.

It’s weird that apps sometimes change scope and add features that users want? Ones that contributers already did most of the work for?

Why aren’t they insisting this doesn’t need to be dealt with because it was a feature, not a bug?

That was literally what they have been saying this whole fucking time.

“The database key was never intended to be a secret. At-rest encryption is not something that Signal Desktop is currently trying to provide or has ever claimed to provide,” responded the Signal employee.

It does encrpyt messages: In transit, exactly as advertised. Holy fuck.

They didn’t fuck up, they made a design choice about the scope of the app. Are they also fucking up by not blurring the messages on screen? After all someone could be looking over your shoulder without you realizing it. Maybe Signal should ship with spyglasses.

Because you had a bullshit job to begin with?

It’s mostly family photos and videos. I’ve become the de facto family digital archivist. Some digital copies of important phyiscal records. When you convert files to lossless/uncompressed formats suitable for long term storage they get large really quickly.

I use BD-R for archival storage of important files. They’re cheaper and easier than tape as well as small. I burn them in triplicate and throw them in the same case and as long as the same 3 bits don’t corrupt I can recover. The shelf life on a blue ray sealed and stored well is a few decades which is better than most other media.

Women and girls should show us the goods so we don’t get so horny.

Yeah, nobody said anything even close to this. Cute trolling.

Oh FFS, I clipped the word new. Of course it uses information in the prompt. That’s trivial. No one cares about it returning the information that was given to it in the prompt. Nevertheless, mea culpa. You got me.

this is a ship of thesseus premise here

No, it really isn’t.

The pupose of that paradox is that you unambiguously are recreating/replacing the ship exactly as you already know it is. The reason the ‘ai’ in question here is even being used is that it isn’t doing that. It’s giving you back much more than it was given.

The comparison would be if Thesues’ ship had been lost and you definitely don’t have the ship anymore, but had managed to recover the sail. If you take the sail to an experienced builder (the ai) who had never seen the ship, then he might be able to build a reasonable approximation based on inferences from the sail and his wealth of knowledge, but nobody is going to be daft enough to assert it is same ship. Does the wheel even have the same number of spokes? Does it have the same number of oars? The same weight of anchor?

The only way you could even tell if his attempted fascimile was close is if you had already intimate knowledge of the ship from some other source.

…when a heavily altered photo of something that vaugely resembles it’s original photo in most aspects, is considered to be a photo”

Disagree.

There is no contradicton in believing that collectively shaming people who have had porn of them made is wrong and that making nonconsensual porn of people is wrong. Both are wrong. At no point did I say otherwise.

The difference is that a manipulated photo starts with a photo. It actually contains recorded information about the subject. Deepfakes do not contain any recorded information about the subject unless that subject is also in the training set.

Yes it is semantics, it’s the reason why we have different words for photography and drawing and they are not interchangeable.

I don’t know how common it is to argue that women and girls should be treated as though they have worth and dignity regardless of their sexual proclivities and discretion, but it should be more common than it seems to be.

As for your assertion that holding this belief somehow betrays pedophilic sympathies - I have to admit, I don’t follow. Although I will say whether the literacy failure in this argument is mine or yours I am content to leave as an exercise to our readers.

Perhaps at least a small portion of the blame for what these girls are going through should be laid upon the society which obstinately teaches that a woman’s worth as a person is so inextricably tied to her willingness and ability to maintain the privacy of her areolas and vulva that the mere appearance of having failed in the endeavour is treated as a valid reason to disregard her humanity.