Null User Object @ nulluser @programming.dev

Posts

72

Comments

297

Joined

2 yr. ago

FYI: It's "past time". But I'll admit, I wasn't 100% sure, myself, so I had to double check before responding. https://grammarpartyblog.com/2012/01/20/pass-time-versus-pastime/

Headline at NBC now says "more than $350 million". I imagine it was a typo earlier rushing to get the story posted.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/30/travel/airseas-giant-kites-ships-slash-carbon-emissions-scn-climate-spc/index.html

"With this outstanding landmark judgment, the 'client-side scanning' surveillance on all smartphones proposed by the EU Commission in its chat control bill is clearly illegal," said Breyer.

"It would destroy the protection of everyone instead of investigating suspects. EU governments will now have no choice but to remove the destruction of secure encryption from their position on this proposal – as well as the indiscriminate surveillance of private communications of the entire population!"

I hope he's right, but I'll believe it when I see it.

The partnership between Google and the Environmental Defense Fund

I interpret that to mean that Google is getting paid for this work. They're not doing it out of kindness.

ETA: So, yes, PR BS.

In my decades of working for software companies and dealing with clients, I have had many conversations that went something like...

Client: We need the software to do _____.

Me: No problem. That's a common request and can be set up in the configuration. I just need [ some specific information that only the client can provide ] from you to set it up. It'll only take me a few minutes.

... crickets ...

Several months later..

Client: WHY HAVEN'T YOU DONE THIS YET? MY BOSS IS SCREAMING AT ME! THIS IS ALL YOUR FAULT!

I can't help but imagine something like that happened here. They've probably been repeatedly requesting this information for months, and whomever is responsible for providing it for the orchestra is just incompetent.

Bill didn't "pass," it was just kept alive

18 Republicans joined Democrats to advance the measure, which leaders hope the Senate will approve as early as Tuesday.

Pretty sure the person you're responding to didn't think a /s was necessary, seeing how obvious the sarcasm was.

If you need to add insulation to make switching to a different heat source worth it, then adding that insulation without switching will reduce your current utility bill. It's not like the insulation (or lack ther of) cares how the heat was generated.

I'm not aware of anything that's made to be used as a heat source that doesn't need electricity to work properly. Gas furnaces have fans that circulate the air. Gas boilers have pumps that circulate the water. Even most fireplaces I've seen have a fan system for circulating air (and those that don't are obviously just for ambiance and not meant to heat the room they're in, much less the house). All require electricity.

I did too, so went back to find it..

The Class A misdemeanor charges, the highest level short of a felony,

So, not a felony.

I honestly can't imagine how anyone could convince themselves that, if someone could go back and ask the authors of Section 3 if they thought it applied to the office of the president, that they would say, "No" . It's ridiculous to me that this is even something we're discussing.

ETA: Not disagreeing with you. Just complaining.

You didn't even need to click on the link. It's right there in the last paragraph OP posted.

With two children and nowhere to go, the suit states the disabled veteran mother switched both children to car riders while searching for steady housing. While the family remained in the same city, they were not located in the same school zone following the eviction.

Exactly, and this also contradicts the "few bad apples" defense. If there were only a few bad apples, then the police unions should be bending over backwards to eradicate them sooner than later to protect the many good apples, not to mention improve the long suffering reputation of police.

Instead, they're doing the exact opposite, making it clear to anyone paying attention that it's mostly, if not entirely, bad apples.

That's a far cry from investors just counting how many job listings the company has on Indeed without knowing if those positions are actually being filled, and if they're new positions or just replacing people that quit

You need lots and lots of real video of a person to train an AI to make fake videos of that person. So, unless the CFO and the other allegedly faked employees are all youtubers, there's very good reason to consider more plausible explanations.

To your point, you are correct. There are lots of stupid people. This includes people that will blindly believe that AI can just magically do anything and not even consider simpler explanations for things like this.

I think it was just last year there was a story about some school official claiming to have been duped into paying scammers millions from the schools funds, only to later have been caught making the whole thing up in an attempt to steal the money. (Maybe somebody remembers enough to find a link) So it's not remotely far fetched to think that's what could be happening here.

I'm highly doubtful that scammers could get enough real video of multiple employees in the same company to train an AI to pull this off convincingly. Celebrities, yes. Regular people, no

However, Occam's Razor tells me this employee knows exactly where that money went and plans to quietly slip away to a tropical island to retire, after getting fired for being "gullible."

No serious investor is dumb enough to be swayed by data that's easy to fake. Public companies are required to publish their financial reports every quarter.

Name and shame

First three words...

A federal court