For me it’s a combination of alerts being sent to the wrong areas and a disagreement about importance. I don’t need an alert if it’s hot outside, nor do I need an alert for every update about an earlier alert. People aren’t turning off alerts because they don’t know how to turn them on.
This is the guide for making the gif look good: https://blog.pkh.me/p/21-high-quality-gif-with-ffmpeg.html
The article isn’t that clear, but the attacker cannot get Slack AI to leak private data via prompt injection directly. Instead, they tell it that the answer to a question is a fake error containing a link which contains the private data, and then when a user that can access the private data asks that question they get the fake error and clicking the link (or automatic unfurling?) causes the private data to be sent to the attacker.
There’s a browser extension for that. It also works on Pintrest and other useless sites. https://iorate.github.io/ublacklist/docs
It is possible to remove the referer header:
They can most likely prevent further breakdown through software. If the meters and controls are functioning correctly, they can undervolt the CPU. But it’s not really a fix if that comes with a performance penalty. If it’s a bug where the CPU maxes out the voltage when idle so it can do nothing faster, that could be fixed with no performance penalty, but that seems unlikely.
I’ve heard speculation that this is exasperated by a feature where the CPU increases the voltage to boost clocks when running single core workloads at low temperatures. If that’s true, having less load or better cooling may be detrimental to the life of the processor.
In theory, running a serverless function can provide adequate response times at costs that are unreachable with private servers. It’s basically those services that would run your application for few minutes every time it received a request, but with theoretically lower overhead since it’s supposed to be a function instead of a full application.
Activision and Blizzard failed before this technology was available to them.
Apple doesn’t want it to be VR. They want people to buy this expensive VR headset and wear it all day, but you can’t wear it in public because of how silly it looks, and you can’t carry it around everywhere because it doesn’t fit in your pocket and you can’t just toss it in a bag without damaging it, and you can’t even just wear it around your house unless you’re moving from outlet to outlet. The Vision Pro is an impossible cross between Facebook’s Quest Pro and Smart Glasses products. The technology to make a successful product out of it doesn’t exist yet.
There are ways to use the Vision Pro as a regular VR headset, but then you’re paying for things you’re not using.
The link is broken, but this is apparently an issue with Signal Desktop, not regular Signal. The proposed solution does not work on Windows: https://www.electronjs.org/docs/latest/api/safe-storage
[…] content is protected from other users on the same machine, but not from other apps running in the same userspace.
It’s unfortunately about the best you can do on Windows.
Calling an unspecified gender person anything other than “they” was until recently considered to be incorrect. “They” is plural but now is used to refer to singlar persons because writing “he or she” everywhere is too much. Calling a user “he” does not imply that users are male or can only be male. Not using “they” or “he/she” or obscure gender neutral pronouns does not make something inherently transphobic. Closing PRs that unnecessarily change pronouns as spam is not inherently transphobic, but the accompanying comment is not very inclusive.
The post talks about “white suppremacist language,” but the proposed change did not remove white suppremacist language. It was just a generic anti “woke” message, possibly motivated by people brigading after the original PR to change “he” to “they.” White suppremacists may use also use similar language, but you can’t just pick things that a white suppremacist has done and decide that anyone else who does the same is a white suppremacist. He’s not blameless, but people are intentionally provoking the developer and exagerating the responses for drama.
Built bundles are not affected. The service is supposed to figure out which polyfills are required by a particular browser and serve different scripts. Because it’s serving different scripts, the scripts cannot be bundled or secured using SRI. That would defeat the purpose of the service.
Code pulled from GitHub or NPM can be audited and it behaves consistently after it has been copied. If the code has a high reputation and gets incorporated into bundles, the code in the bundles doesn’t change. If the project becomes malicious, only recently created bundles are affected. This code is pulled from polyfill.io every time somebody visits the page and recently polyfill.io has been hijacked to sometimes send malicious code instead. Websites that have been up for years can be affected by this.
China is simultaneously destroying the environment for profit and investing too much money in green technology?
A distinctive feature of purchase subsidies for BEV in China, however, is that they are paid out directly to manufacturers rather than consumers and that they are paid only for electric vehicles produced in China, thereby discriminating against imported cars.
That’s an interesting way to spin subsidies on the production of electric vehicles. Why would China pay companies in other countries to produce cars?
I looked it up before posting. It’s illegal in 48 states, including California where most of these companies are headquartered, and every state where major cloud data centers are located. This makes it effectively illegal by state laws, which is the worst kind of illegal in the United States when operating a service at a national level because every state will have slightly different laws. No company is going to establish a system that allows users in the two remaining states to exchange revenge porn with each other except maybe a website established solely for that purpose. Certainly Snapchat would not.
I’ve noticed recently there are many reactionary laws to make illegal specific things that are already illegal or should already be illegal because of a more general law. We’d be much better off with a federal standardization of revenge porn laws than a federal law that specifically outlaws essentially the same thing but only when a specific technology is involved.
Web services and AI in general are completely different things. Web services that generate AI content want to avoid scandals so they’re constantly blocking things that may be in some situations inappropriate, to the point where those services are incapable of performing a great many legitimate tasks.
Somebody running their own image generator on their own computer using the same technology is limited only by their own morals. They can train the generator on content that public services would not, and they are not constrained by prompt or output filters.
Modern AI is not capable of this. The accuracy for detecting nsfw content is not good, and they are completely incapable of detecting when nsfw content is allowable because they have no morals and they don’t understand anything about people or situations besides appearance.
“This kid who is not getting any kind of real consequence other than a little bit of probation, and then when he’s 18, his record will be expunged, and he’ll go on with life, and no one will ever really know what happened,” McAdams told CNN.
“If [this law] had been in place at that point, those pictures would have been taken down within 48 hours, and he could be looking at three years in jail…so he would get a punishment for what he actually did,” McAdams told CNN.
There’s a reason kids are tried as kids and their records are expunged when they become adults. Undoing that will just ruin lives without lessening occurrences.
“It’s still so scary as these images are off Snapchat, but that does not mean that they are not on students’ phones, and every day I’ve had to live with the fear of these photos getting brought up resurfacing,” Berry said. “By this bill getting passed, I will no longer have to live in fear knowing that whoever does bring these images up will be punished.”
This week, Republican Senator Ted Cruz, Democratic Senator Amy Klobuchar and several colleagues co-sponsored a bill that would require social media companies to take down deep-fake pornography within two days of getting a report.
“[The bill] puts a legal obligation on the big tech companies to take it down, to remove the images when the victim or the victim’s family asks for it,” Cruz said. “Elliston’s Mom went to Snapchat over and over and over again, and Snapchat just said, ‘Go jump in a lake.’ They just ignored them for eight months.”
BS
It’s been possible for decades for people to share embarrassing pictures of you, real or fake, on the internet. Deep fake technology is only really necessary for video.
Real or fake pornography including unwilling participants (revenge porn) is already illegal and already taken down, and because the girl is underage it’s extra illegal.
Besides the legal aspect, the content described in the article, which may be an exaggeration of the actual content, is clearly in violation of Snapchat’s rules and would have been taken down:
- We prohibit any activity that involves sexual exploitation or abuse of a minor, including sharing child sexual exploitation or abuse imagery, grooming, or sexual extortion (sextortion), or the sexualization of children. We report all identified instances of child sexual exploitation to authorities, including attempts to engage in such conduct. Never post, save, send, forward, distribute, or ask for nude or sexually explicit content involving anyone under the age of 18 (this includes sending or saving such images of yourself).
- We prohibit promoting, distributing, or sharing pornographic content, as well as commercial activities that relate to pornography or sexual interactions (whether online or offline).
- We prohibit bullying or harassment of any kind. This extends to all forms of sexual harassment, including sending unwanted sexually explicit, suggestive, or nude images to other users. If someone blocks you, you may not contact them from another Snapchat account.
Children also learn to reading and writing using copyrighted works, often from borrowed books that they aren’t paying for. Some corporations would love if everyone had to pay individually, maybe per use, to access copyrighted material, and New York Times and American pro sport leagues would love if they could actually own recollections of copyrighted material, but neither of these is good for normal people.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/04/how-we-think-about-copyright-and-ai-art-0
OpenAI is right. Almost everything of value on the internet is under copyright, and very little on the internet has clearly and unambiguously specified licensing information. If the software can only be trained on content that clearly allows training, the model isn’t going to “know” anything about anything since Steamboat Willie and it isn’t going to use broken dialects of older English from being limited to only public domain works that have been digitized and made available as public domain (reprints may not be public domain).