Don’t be ridiculous, they love their customers. You just ain’t one of them. Their target demo continues to be people don’t want to think about it and have enough money to not care about the difference between $8 and $80. Same as ever. It’s also kinda hard to fault them considering how much fucking money they make.
The entire time you spend sitting at a light after it turns green is solely to wait for those gaps to reappear.
CDs for me. If you buy a big disc binder they really don’t take up that much room. Its about the same size as the 1971 compact OED that sits on the same shelf.
If I really wanted to get rid of them I’d just donate them to the local library system. The ones they don’t want they’d resell as a fundraiser.
I expect they will not be worth it as they’re too underpowered for your specific use case. (I’m assuming your use case is hosting complex physical similations for a major university physics department and the old computer you’re considering on Amazon is a used version of this one or something similar.)
For my home server I use whatever old PC I have laying around already.
Because you had a bullshit job to begin with?
All the charts on page 15. The ones where they extrapolate exponential improvement for a decade while only citing themselves. Their prediction is 15% annually for storage cost improvements in Li-ion batteries which they call ‘conservative’
Our analysis conservatively assumes that battery energy storage capacity costs will continue to decline over the course of the 2020s at an average annual rate of 15% (Figure 3).
Let us check if their souce updated. $139 for 2023? That isn’t a 15% decrease since 2019’s $156, let alone year over year since then, which would be under $90. In spite of last year’s drop that is still more than the 2021 price of $132. I don’t know what ‘on track’ means to you but it must be something different than it means to me.
Really gives me the warm fuzzies when someone looks at changes to physical systems over time then draws a trend line into the future indefinitely without any citations or discussion of plausibility for the part they drew on.
shouldn’t we rather invest our productivity and resources into a faster and cheaper solution?
We sure should. Do tell of this this faster, cheaper solution that is also adequate to meet all of our needs.
Women and girls should show us the goods so we don’t get so horny.
Yeah, nobody said anything even close to this. Cute trolling.
Oh FFS, I clipped the word new. Of course it uses information in the prompt. That’s trivial. No one cares about it returning the information that was given to it in the prompt. Nevertheless, mea culpa. You got me.
this is a ship of thesseus premise here
No, it really isn’t.
The pupose of that paradox is that you unambiguously are recreating/replacing the ship exactly as you already know it is. The reason the ‘ai’ in question here is even being used is that it isn’t doing that. It’s giving you back much more than it was given.
The comparison would be if Thesues’ ship had been lost and you definitely don’t have the ship anymore, but had managed to recover the sail. If you take the sail to an experienced builder (the ai) who had never seen the ship, then he might be able to build a reasonable approximation based on inferences from the sail and his wealth of knowledge, but nobody is going to be daft enough to assert it is same ship. Does the wheel even have the same number of spokes? Does it have the same number of oars? The same weight of anchor?
The only way you could even tell if his attempted fascimile was close is if you had already intimate knowledge of the ship from some other source.
…when a heavily altered photo of something that vaugely resembles it’s original photo in most aspects, is considered to be a photo”
Disagree.
There is no contradicton in believing that collectively shaming people who have had porn of them made is wrong and that making nonconsensual porn of people is wrong. Both are wrong. At no point did I say otherwise.
The difference is that a manipulated photo starts with a photo. It actually contains recorded information about the subject. Deepfakes do not contain any recorded information about the subject unless that subject is also in the training set.
Yes it is semantics, it’s the reason why we have different words for photography and drawing and they are not interchangeable.
I don’t know how common it is to argue that women and girls should be treated as though they have worth and dignity regardless of their sexual proclivities and discretion, but it should be more common than it seems to be.
As for your assertion that holding this belief somehow betrays pedophilic sympathies - I have to admit, I don’t follow. Although I will say whether the literacy failure in this argument is mine or yours I am content to leave as an exercise to our readers.
Perhaps at least a small portion of the blame for what these girls are going through should be laid upon the society which obstinately teaches that a woman’s worth as a person is so inextricably tied to her willingness and ability to maintain the privacy of her areolas and vulva that the mere appearance of having failed in the endeavour is treated as a valid reason to disregard her humanity.
photos
They aren’t photos. They’re photorealistic drawings done by computer algorithms. This might seem like a tiny quibble to many, but as far as I can tell it is the crux of the entire issue.
There isn’t any actual private information about the girls being disclosed. The algorithms, for example, do not and could not know about and produce an unseen birthmark, mole, tattoo, piercing, etc. A photograph would have that information. What is being shown is an approxomation of what similar looking girls in the training set look like, with the girls’ faces stiched on top. That is categorically different than something like revenge porn which is purely private information specific to the individual.
I’m sure it doesn’t feel all that different to the girls in the pics, or to the boys looking at it for that matter. There is some degree of harm here without question. But we must tread lightly because there is real danger in categorizing algorithmic guesswork as reliable which many authoritarian types are desperate to do.
https://www.wired.com/story/parabon-nanolabs-dna-face-models-police-facial-recognition/
This is the other side of the same coin. We cannot start treating the output of neural networks as facts. These are error prone black-boxes and that fact must be driven hard into the consciousness of every living person.
For some, I’m sure purely unrelated reason, I feel like reading Phillip K Dick again…
I give it 3 more years, tops, until Windows is fully a subscription service. Hope you enjoyed the era of owning your PC because it’s coming to an end.