When I lived in a top floor apartment in Melbourne, where it regularly hit 40°C without any air-conditioning (still unsure how that was and is legal to rent out), I would use a spray bottle of water and a fan to evaporatively cool myself, cold showers to lower my body heat and trips to an air-conditioned space like the cinema or shopping centre during the worst of it.
My partner and I both play regularly and on a lot of holes there is just no chance for her to throw as far as me based on power output.
That being said, I thought it had been proven that there was no real physical advantage for trans women after they have been on HRT for a while, and that most of the outcry is transphobia.
The second one, Styx: Shards of Darkness is quite good fun. The first one is quite dated now, from 2013, and the second one makes a lot of improvements over it, so I'd recommend skipping the first.
In the article I explain that it is not exactly what authors do, we reading and writing are an inherently human activity and the consumption and processing of massive amounts of data (far more than a human with a photographic memory could process in a hundred million lifetimes) is a completely different process to that.
I also point out that I don't have a problem with LLMs as a concept, and I'm actually excited about what they can do, but that they are inherently different from humans and should be treated as such by the law.
My main point is that authors should have the ability to decree that they don't want their work used as training data for megacorporations to profit from without their consent.
So, yes in a way it is about money, but the money in question being the money OpenAI and Meta are making off the backs of millions of unpaid and often unsuspecting people.
Don’t see people chomping the bit to take down other sites that have been doing this for decades.
But this hasn't been happening for decades. Machine learning algorithms are an incredibly new way of processing data. All those scenarios you are talking about required a human to be the one doing the reading and summarising, which for most authors is fine, they expect people to read their work and summarise it, or quote it.
What they don't expect is for that work to be fed in full into a private companies data set to train a machine how to duplicate their content at speeds completely incomparable to human capabilities. We're talking about something completely new, completely unseen and you're disregarding the rights of those creators to not want their art, music or writing to be fed into the endless churn of data for these megacorporations.
Pay 44 billion for a brand, then change it. Pure genius.