That sounds pretty plausible, but I’m not sure.
The windows are only very slightly off center, inconsistent, and even the ones above the clock are as well (although the clock mechanism could extend both up and down).
But I also don’t have any better explanation.
What exactly makes this stand out as AI to you, and not just cosplay?
I can’t really find any of the telltale signs of AI. The books on the shelf all look fine, the mirror on the left edge looks perfect and I can’t find anything immediately noticeable on the costume.
If this is AI, I think it’s probably just the face, maybe the whole person, but certainly not the whole picture. But maybe I missed something, please let me know.
Scott Manley recently made a great video about this. He goes through (and explains it while doing so) a whole lot of rough math, and comes to the conclusion that cooling datacentre satelites is actually pretty doable.
German who grew up in the 21st century here. The myth that eating lots of carrots will improve your eyesight/nightvision significantly is still more or less alive and well here. I sort of believed it until I saw a variation on this meme for the first time.
I’d say it seems to have worked pretty well.
To all the people who read neither the article, nor the other comments pointing it out:
And I think it’s a great idea! And Kit looks cute!
Maybe Mozilla finally noticed that most Firefox users are not all that enthusiastic about AI and would rather see development on other parts of Firefox.
One thing I don’t like about the “master key” metaphor: I do lockpicking as a hobby. And locks built for a master key are easier to pick, because you can open them with two keys. It seems kinda obvious when you think about it. (You gotta be careful when picking mastered locks though, the master wafers can fall into the keyway and permanently destroy the lock.)
I’ve only just dipped my toes into Xeno, but it looks like just as much fun as Marines. The people doing the balancing for this game have done an incredible job at making both sides different, but equally strong and fun.
Depending on the language, there might exist an automated tool for generating those kinds of diagrams from code.
If you’re really desperate, try using Tor. I’m not sure if Substack blocks Tor, but assuming it doesn’t, the Tor-browser’s anti-fingerprinting measures should be more than enough.
Edit: Just checked, Substack does not block Tor.
I had a bubble in an IV tube once, and asked about it (I wasn’t being put to sleep)!
Apparently it happens all the time. The thing at the end, just before the needle (sorry, I have no idea what it’s called) filters them out.
You may want to look into amateur radio (or you might not, it needs a licence after all).
I don’t really have any recommendations for you, but I would suggest you crosspost this to !amateur_radio@lemmy.radio
This looks a lot like floating point errors. There’s probably some math involved in exporting that causes these slight inaccuracies.
It probably isn’t too hard to write a short python script to go over the exported file, and round those values.
Nope, David Revoy does a lot of comics in this art style, and the Avian Intelligence parrot has been a recurring character in the last few.
I can also really recommend his comic series Pepper & Carrot, it has some very cool worldbuilding.
I didn’t read more than what’s in OP’s post, but I think the reason the researchers can be so sure is because there are ways to mathematically prove that something cannot be calculated by an algorithm (this is related to how we can mathematically prove that some things cannot be proven).
One classic, simple example of this is the halting problem. It boils down to the fact that we can prove that there is no algorithm that can take any algorithm as an input and determine if that algorithm will finish (halt) after finite time.
Great write up.
As an amateur radio enthusiast, I’d like to add a bit of info to the radio related tips:
Depending on how it works, a radio jammer will almost definetly make you more identifiable and not less. Think of it a bit like being in a dark room. You can sorta see other people (or their silhouettes), but if someone turns on a torch, then you can definetly see the torch. (And any jammer with enough power to “blind” a wifi router at any more than a few meters away only works at 2.4 GHz, or is probably illegal.)
(or “locating recievers”) This is physically impossible.
Now locate a radio transmitter is easy. Ham radio clubs often do regular “fox hunts” where teams try to find a hidden transmitter as fast as possible.
However, most digital devices are transmitting and recieving at the same time, for wifi or bluetooth. Even if you’re just downloading something, you are still transmitting (I think that’s probably what you meant).
This might be common knowledge here, I think I’ve seen a post about it before. When wifi/bluetooth are on, your phone actively searches for nearby networks/devices to connect to. It specifically looks for known networks/devices, and fingerprinting your phone based on which networks/devices it knows is incredibly easy.
So, when you aren’t using it, turn wifi/bluetooth off.
Walking funny usually doesn’t work.
(sorry, no sources here, I’m in a bit of a hurry)
It isn’t the first time someone built a heavily trapped, walled and patrolled border of that size.
Take a look at the Inner German Border. It was over 1300 km (approx. 810 mi) long, and was (average) about 5.5 km wide (a bit more than 3 miles).
From 1974 to 1979, 4956 people attempted to cross it, and only 229 (4.6%) actually made it.
Edited my comment to fix, thanks!
This is less of a source and more like a compilation of resources, but for anything spacecraft related I can always recommend Atomic Rockets. For this specifically, the page on Heat Radiators.
Ok, so this sent me down a brief rabbit hole on Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Headlamp), from which I learned that the US is the only industrialzed country who have a different standard for headlights.
The US SAE standard allows for much more glare on low-beams than the ESE standard used in other countries. That explains why I see so many complaints online over low-beam headlight glare, something I have only really found to be a little annoying over here in Europe. (Also, combine the “worse” standard with significantly larger cars to get even worse glare, I guess.)
But what I was actually looking in the article (didn’t know what it was called) was Glare-free high-beam, which is a system that dynamically shades and lights parts of the high-beams to provide as much light as possible without lighting up other cars.
From experience using it, I’m kinda torn. On the one hand, it does work, is really cool, and makes driving at night quite a bit easier and safer. On the other hand, it’s not perfect, and sometimes (not often, but still) it takes a bit to recognize another car or fails to recognize it completely. And when that happens, I am effectively blinding that other driver with my high-beams, which is bad.
So far, especially on the Autobahn, it works well enough that I tend to use it, because being able to see nearly everything brightly at night is so much safer for me, and the few times it fails I can manually intervene.