Nope, not smoke per se, but still damaging to breathe.

I think people severely underestimate how harmful it is.

They are not just harming themselves. Everyone knows how harmful secondhand smoke is.

I see critical thinking is not your cup of tea. Might want to take that boot out of your ass.

I’ve read through your links. They don’t have much to do with the codebase itself, but with protecting the trademarks.

From what I read, you’re free to change whatever you want. You just can’t go around using their trademarked names for your modified version.

Kapsalon superiority

You forget 11. Shoot me, Daddy Musk

The target must’ve been white.

I dunno, he’s not denying it!

Maybe this is an unpopular opinion, but I have less problems with the “luxury” items, such as cigars.

They’re usually hand-crafted expensive stuff that’s made to enjoy once and a while, compared to cigarettes which are mass produced with the sole purpose to get you addicted.

I think the same is true with alcohol. There’s the cheap, mass produced stuff vs the more expensive “hand”-crafted stuff.

I wish we could just enjoy these things without corporations trying to get us addicted to them at every opportunity, disregarding any of the dangers associated with consuming them.

I don’t know if this applies to the entire EU, but home purchases need to be notarized. You can’t just transfer a deed for a house without the government knowing.

Simply not allowed for a lot of businesses in my country, either by the government or corporate.

I guess I do?

Visualizing stuff isn’t quite the outline one, there’s more detail. But thinking of some paintings, I can’t quite recall the colors.

No, I would tell you to avoid Ghent at all costs then!

Just make sure to avoid Brussels. Belgian myself and I hate the place.

Stopped there for a day on the way back from Spain. The walled Hamlet is beautiful, especially nice to stroll through the streets after dark.

I mean, yeah. Only one of both groups had both experiences.

Child free people love to shit on an experience they know nothing about, sure parents are ready to reply to those.

Nobody is telling people to have children…

No, you have it the other way around. It means copyright owners can share “corrupted” versions of their works and the AI can still use it. Possible AI leaks won’t return the original work, since it was never used.

Of course I think this is only one aspect of why artists wouldn’t share their works, but it’s not the point the paper is trying to make. They’re just giving an aspect of how it could be useful.

It’s not what the paper is about at all, seems this is just shit journalism again.

All the paper says about copyright is that this method is more secure because AI can sometimes spit out training examples.

I think you are a bit confused about the E-mail structure.

Everything behind the @ is the domain, on your case “domain.com” Before the @ is just a name that can be used as you, the domain owner, wants.

If you want to redirect all mail to [email protected], that’s very easy to do AND you can still see the original e-mail address these nails were sent to.

So I assume for example Dropbox sent some commercial mail about current offers. Using that, he knew the old account and that it was signed up to Dropbox

It’s from an Apple commercial, which was an allusion to 1984