Isn’t the opt-out option to just not make the photos/posts globally public?
He’s very good.
Isn’t the opt-out option to just not make the photos/posts globally public?
My 4-person household has one car, one electric cargo bike with two kid seats, a regular bicycle, accounts with bikeshare/scooter options around our city, plus mass transit passes, plus the option of Uber/Lyft.
Bikes might not work as a replacement for a first car, but they can work pretty well as a replacement for a second car, and a tool for reducing total mileage on the car you own.
Everything depends on where you live, of course, but a substantial number of people live in a place where a bike can reduce the number of miles you drive, even if you never actually give up the car.
Huh, weird. I believe you, but I don’t see it when I load the page (Lemmy sync, Firefox on Android), in either desktop or mobile mode. Maybe the server is doing something with different browsers/environments.
Just stop using “clean.”
Um, ok, done.
The article doesn’t use the word “clean.” Your first comment is the one to introduce the term into the thread.
I probably shouldn’t dunk on a student newspaper opinion piece, but what’s the proposal here? For rich people to avoid healthy eating in solidarity?
Singular “they” is older than singular “you.” And note, of course, that the pronoun “you” is conjugated as a plural, and we deal with it just fine.
The non-cynical answer is that they’re counting contractor/vendor time in this full time equivalent answer. Which would probably be a good thing, because I imagine that the best people in cybersecurity aren’t actually employees of Microsoft.
To put it in more simple terms:
When Alice chats with Bob, Alice can’t control whether Bob feeds the conversation into a training data set to set parameters that have the effect of mimicking Alice.
“Woods family reunion” is a good one.
Big log.
Your comment missed the mark entirely.
Not sure why you’re saying that. I wasn’t disagreeing with any of your points, but adding to them another angle that answered the parent comment’s concerns about whether leaving wifi on for airplane mode drains battery. You addressed the cellular radio side, and I was adding a separate point about the WiFi radio that complements what you were saying.
Also, phones don’t use a lot of power to purely listen for Wifi beacons. They’re not transmitting until they actually try to join, so leaving wifi on doesn’t cost significant power unless you just happen to be near a remembered network.
Your scenario 1 is the actual danger. It’s not that AI will outsmart us and kill us. It’s that AI will trick us into trusting them with more responsibility than the AI can responsibly handle, to disastrous results.
It could be small scale, low stakes stuff, like an AI designing a menu that humans blindly cook. Or it could be higher stakes stuff that actually does things like affect election results, crashes financial markets, causes a military to target the wrong house, etc. The danger has always been that humans will act on the information provided by a malfunctioning AI, not that AI and technology will be a closed loop with no humans involved.
to my knowledge, Bluetooth doesn’t work with airplane mode
The radio regulations were amended about 10 years ago to allow both Bluetooth and Wifi frequencies to be used on airplanes in flight. And so cell phone manufacturers have shifted what airplane mode actually means, even to the point of some phones not even turning off Wi-Fi when airplane mode is turned on. And regardless of defaults, both wireless protocols can be activated and deactivated independently of airplane mode on most phones now.
an airplane full of 100 people all on Bluetooth might create some noise issues that would hurt the performance
I don’t think so. Bluetooth is such a low bandwidth use that it can handle many simultaneous users. It’s supposed to be a low power transmission method, in which it bursts a signal only a tiny percentage of the time, so the odds of a collision for any given signal are low, plus the protocol is designed to be robust where it handles a decent amount of interference before encountering degraded performance.
It makes them look weak and pitiful
To whom? Are we even the intended audience here?
Reporting over the last 10 years has shown that Xi Jinping has been obsessed with the idea of “color revolutions,” whereby popular movements from within a nation’s population overthrow the ruling apparatus. Rightly or wrongly, the current CCP sees revolution from within being the most dangerous threat on their power, so much of what they do is best understood as being aimed at stifling that kind of movement.
There seems to be a misunderstanding here. Who’s keeping ill gotten gains? This is like the Madoff case where the investments on paper simply didn’t exist. There are no gains, much less ill gotten gains, that aren’t being returned to victims.
That’s like telling Madoff’s victims they get paid back in 2024 the amount they invested in the 1990s.
No, people are getting paid based on the value of their investments at the time of the FTX collapse, not tracing back years to when they first deposited funds. That distinction makes a huge difference, especially in a case like Madoff (or the original Ponzi scheme by Charles Ponzi himself).
He already did argue that, and it backfired.
The FTX restructuring officer wrote a letter to the criminal court specifically arguing that SBF’s argument was bullshit for all sorts of reasons, and the court agreed: “A thief who takes his loot to Las Vegas and successfully bets the stolen money is not entitled to a discount on his sentence.”
Plus that argument and a few other statements he made showed his lack of remorse, which denied him credit under the guidelines for acceptance of responsibility, and probably factored into his fairly harsh 25 year sentence.
Convenient for who? The people who orchestrated the theft are going to prison. The people who came in to pick up the pieces are the ones who were able to claw back the money to pay back the victims.
Yeah, FTX stole customer investments, sold them, then invested that cash in other stuff and hand out cash to executives. Some of it was traced to specific people (including SBF and his parents), and the restructuring officers clawed that back. Some of the investments paid off, some didn’t, but the end result was that there was enough to repay people based on what things were worth on the bankruptcy petition date.
Yes but they only performed the training on the posts and images set to be globally publicly accessible by anyone. In a sense, they took the public permissions as an indicator that they could use that data for more than just providing the bare social media service.