You and everyone else that's using Firefox. It's one of the dumbest "features" that's ever been added to Firefox and that's quite an accomplishment considering the long history of adding stupid features nobody asked for.

This next election is going to be an absolute shitshow. I guarantee they'll refuse to certify the election, and they'll try to hijack the electoral college (again).

Bernie once again demonstrating that he's the only adult in a room full of children. It's got to be frustrating as hell to be surrounded by these morons constantly.

I read the headline and was prepared to support the church on this one (for once). Then I read the first paragraph of the article. I have never made a 180 on an opinion so fast. The fuck is wrong with the Catholic church and child abuse? Why is this a constant problem with them?

The records seem to indicate it was used as part of the island's reverse osmosis water treatment system. There I saved you a click.

Man they are still caught up on that fake story somebody sent to one of these morons claiming kids were using litter boxes in school. It never happened but they're going to try to legislate it away anyway.

The lesson here is don't troll these idiots, they'll fucking believe it and then start passing idiotic laws for non-problems.

So 1/3rd of Americans don't understand how economies work or what a tariff is.

I have so many questions, none of which are answered by the article. Was the flavor really picked by an AI? If so, how did they train the AI? What kind of AI was this? What other flavors did it come up with? Did they try a bunch of them and this was the best one they could get?

This whole thing just screams marketing stunt to me, and not a particularly good one. I can't wait for this whole AI thing to just die out already. How is it that every tech fad seems to somehow end up being even dumber than the previous one (although I think the whole NFT thing might have set a new low bar)?

Please stop posting this kind of garbage to the technology community, this belongs in a creative writing community more than it does this one. There is absolutely no technological basis for literally any of this. You just sent ChatGPT on a prolonged hallucination session and it's as relevant to this community as the plot of Terminator is.

I'm really getting sick and tired of all the unhinged "AI" posts constantly showing up by people that either have no clue at all how something like ChatGPT functions, or worse know exactly how it functions and are just generating clickbait for views.

ChatGPT is not a general purpose AI and it will never do anything other than creative writing. It can not tell you any truth that doesn't already exist in some form on the internet, and if you think it has either it or you are hallucinating (I.E. it's bullshit). AI are not coming for everybody's jobs in a general sense, although a bunch of moronic CEOs are eating garbage like this post up and salivating at the idea of firing their entire workforce and replacing them with AI controlled drones (hint, like most technology you can only replace many cheap workers with a fewer much more expensive workers who need to maintain the very expensive technology).

If your job involves physically doing something and it hasn't been replaced by automation yet then that's because it's cheaper to pay you to do it than it would be to program and maintain robots to do it, any "AI" isn't going to change that calculus.

If your job involves creating something then you're probably still OK even if "AI" is introduced, you'll just become responsible for fixing the half broken output of the "AI".

The only people that need to be worried about being replaced by something like ChatGPT are people doing low skill high turnover jobs where volume counts a lot more than accuracy like call centers.

Comment Closed: Duplicate Post

See other comment about different company going out of business for totally different reason.

It's way past this point now. Had reddit done this back when the shutdowns were first planned that would be one thing, but at this point they've demonstrated they can't be trusted, they don't care about their users or mods, and they're only interested in anything they think will increase the their profit margins for the IPO. If you aren't an investment firm they don't give a single shit about you past whatever damage you might do to their IPO plans.

Valves statement also matches with the claims of Itch.io, Stripe, and what Collective Shout themselves have claimed. So we've got two different claims, on one side are Visa and Mastercard, and on the other we've got literally everyone else. I feel pretty confident about which one is a load of bullshit.

It's also worth noting that Visa and Mastercard are playing semantic games with their statements. Nobody ever claimed they were "refusing legal transactions", rather what they're doing is threatening to stop working with any business that doesn't implement censorship that they're happy with. It's a subtle but important difference and they've never denied that's what they're doing.

Edit: rereading Mastercards statement they are claiming they don't restrict how businesses operate (although they do weasel around a little bit about illegal content), although Visa still hasn't denied that. They may also be playing games with that statement because porn is illegal in some countries that Mastercard operates in so they may be trying to claim porn is an illegal transaction despite businesses not selling it in the countries it's illegal in.

Edit 2: It just occurred to me this could also be about the UK and some US states new (and horrible) porn ID laws. I'm not aware of Valve doing anything to implement the strict age verification those laws are requiring for sites that distribute porn, and Visa/Mastercard could be trying to argue that without that in place any porn games Valve sells are "illegal transactions". In theory Steam does have age gating, but it's the same "are you over 18?" easily bypassed check that porn sites have always used.

That's how you know it's probably a good idea.

Personally I'd go a step further and regulate algorithmic feeds in general. It's pretty clear at this point that feeding people a steady drip of content picked to maximize "engagement" above all else has done incalculable damage.

Well anything the Heritage Foundation is against is clearly a good idea, so Europe should be proud that on the whole they're doing a good job. Keep pissing off the Heritage Foundation to keep winning.

You mean the guy known to creep on underage girls, who insisted on barging into their changing rooms, who made inappropriate comments about his own daughter when she was under age, and who frequently hung out with the guy that was a known paedophile and was known to prostitute underage girls to his rich friends, doesn't want to talk about what he was doing with him all that time?

Gee, I wonder why.

Yeah, that's because Trumps idea of finishing the war is to just hand the country to Putin. He said he could end the war in 24 hours, not win it.

Would you refuse to visit websites that force registration even if the account is free?

Yes, I already do. I don't visit Instagram because you need to login to view posts.

What's all the fuss about, you don't care?

I definitely care.

Is advertising a necessary evil in fair trade for content?

Ah, now this is an interesting question. I can certainly see an argument that ads are necessary to support "free" content, although personally in many cases I prefer to pay a subscription to support content rather than being subjected to ads.

Really though this is kind of a red herring because it's predisposing that violating your privacy and collecting personal information is a prerequisite to serving ads. It's required for individually targeted ads, yes, but they don't need to traget ads to the individual, they could target the ad by site or the contents of the page hosting the ad.

Would this limit your visiting of websites to only a narrow few you are willing to trade personal details for?

I would not visit any site that sold my details to an advertiser.

Is this a bad thing for the internet experience as whole, or just another progression of technology?

Yes, this is very bad.

Is this no different from using any other technology platform that's free (If it's free, you're the product)?

There's a reason I don't use most "social media" sites.

Should website owners just accept a lower revenue model and adapt their business, rather than seeking higher / unfair revenues from a privacy invasive practices of the past?

Yes, or find a different revenue model that doesn't invade people's privacy.

They seem to be rather missing the point. It wouldn't matter if they switch to a caucus, he's banned from running in the state so all they would do is exclude Republicans from having a candidate for president in the general election. This is very much in the "don't threaten me with a good time" territory.

Yeah no shit. Because it's essentially impossible to acquire that much wealth in that short a period of time. Even the number of millionaires under 30 that didn't inherit their wealth is tiny.

Man, someone called this play on the day they fired Bondi. It will be interesting to see if Congress lets them get away with it or if they charge her with contempt.